Transactions  of  the 
American  Society  of 
Landscape  Architects 

1899-1908 


®fj*  •&  £L  JItU  pbrarg 


^ortl|  (Carolina  js>iale  College 

*5b463 


This  book  must  not  be 
taken  from  the  Library 
building. 


TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 
OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 


Transactions  of 

The  American  Society  of 

Landscape  Architects 


From  its  inception  in  1899 
to  the  end  of  1908 


Edited  by  the  Committee  appointed  for  the  purpose: 

HAROLD   A.  CAPARN 
JAMES   STURGIS   PRAY 
DOWNING  VAUX 


J.  Horace  McFarland  Company 

Mt.  Pleasant  Press 

Harrisburc,  Pennsylvania 


Preface 

THE  Committee  on  Editing  Transactions  has  considered  that  this  volume 
will  be  useful  chiefly  as  a  book  of  reference  to  the  events  and  current 
thought  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A.,  not  only  for  its  members  but  for  others.  Con- 
ciseness has  therefore  been  sought  and  repetition  avoided;  matters  that 
seemed  of  merely  temporary  interest  have  been  omitted,  and  facts  placed  so  as  to 
be  easily  accessible.  Lists  of  members,  executive  and  special  committees,  and 
treasurer's  reports  have  been  tabulated  so  that  the  standing  of  members,  officers, 
committees,  and  finances  of  any  year  can  be  quickly  found  and  compared  with 
those  of  other  years. 

Reports  of  meetings  have  been  standardized,  attention  being  paid  even  to 
such  details  as  the  order  of  statement  of  time  and  place  of  meeting,  the  omission 
of  initials  of  those  present  (which  can  be  found  in  the  membership  list)  and  of  the 
chairman,  who  is  the  highest  officer  present.  The  membership  list  has  been 
brought  up  to  January,  191 2,  the  year  of  publication,  in  order  to  make  it  as  useful 
as  possible. 

It  has  been  thought  best  to  record  the  meetings  separately,  not  only  because 
they  form  a  sequential  history  of  the  Society,  but  because  of  the  individual  and 
intimate  character  which  they  still  retain. 

It  has  been  a  common  practice  for  members  to  bring  plans  of  work  in  progress 
to  the  meetings  for  criticism;  but,  as  the  discussions  of  these  plans  have  not  been 
preserved,  it  is  held  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  custom  in  these  general  terms. 

The  papers  have  been  printed  entire,  abbreviated  or  even  rewritten  and,  in 
several  cases,  revised  by  the  authors;  but  it  is  believed  that  nothing  of  permanent 
value  has  been  lost.  In  two  instances  (papers  by  Mr.  J.  C.  Olmsted  and  Mr. 
F.  L.  Olmsted  on  the  Boston  Park  System,  and  by  Mr.  Vitale  on  Italian  Gardens) 
illustrations  have  been  added  to  elucidate  the  text. 

The  subject  of  exhibitions  of  works  of  members  has  often  been  discussed  and 
several  committees  have  been  appointed;  but  only  two  meetings  have  been  held, 
one  in  1902  and  one  as  part  of  the  exhibition  of  the  Municipal  Art  Society,  in  1907. 
The  catalogue  of  the  former,  as  the  only  one  yet  held  by  the  Society  alone,  is 
printed  entire.    An  index  to  the  whole,  with  many  cross  references,  is  given. 

It  has  not  always  been  easy  to  decide  what  material  should  be  rejected  and 
what  retained,  and  complete  consistency  therein  is  not  claimed.  It  is  only  to  be 
expected  that  opinions  will  differ  as  to  judgment  in  selection,  but  it  is  hoped  that 
the  book  may  aid  in  establishing  a  standard  for  revised  Transactions  and  thus 
lighten  the  labors  of  future  editing  committees. 


1 


27132 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2009  with  funding  from 

NCSU  Libraries 


http://www.archive.org/details/transactionsofaOOamer 


LIST    OF    MEMBERS    FROM    1899,   THE    FIRST    YEAR    OF 
THE   A.  S.  L.  A.,  TO  JANUARY,  1912 

F — Fellow.     J — Junior  Member.     * — Original  Members. 

Aldrich,  Raymond  W.,  89  State  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  1908 

Armstrong,  E.  Maitland,  New  York  City J  1899-1901 

Auten,  Andrew,  Rose  Building,  Cleveland,  Ohio J  1904 

'Barrett,  Nathan  F.,  New  Rochelle,  N.  Y F  1899-1907 

Brinckerhoff,  Arthur  Freeman,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City J  1903 

Brinley,  John  R.,  156  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City F  1908 

*Bullard,  Miss  Elizabeth,  Bridgeport,  Conn F  1899 

Button,  Frank  M.,  1 101  Buena  Avenue,  Chicago,  III J  1902,  F  1910 

Caparn,  Harold  A.,  156  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City F  1905 

Chamberlin,  N.,  Gramercy  Park,  New  York  City J  IQ07 

Child,  Stephen,  6  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  1910,  F  1912 

Coffin,  Miss  Marion  Cruger,  119  East  19th  Street,  New  York  City J  1906 

Comey,  Arthur  C,  Harvard  Square,  Cambridge,  Mass J  1910 

Cook,  Wilbur  David,  Jr.,  Story  Building,  Los  Angeles,  Cal J  1906,  F  1910 

Cox,  Laurie  D.,  704  Breitmeyer  Building,  Detroit,  Mich J  1912 

Craven,  Truxton,  care  of  G.  F.  Pentecost,  Yonkers,  N.  Y J  1903-1904 

Dawson,  J.  Frederick,  care  of  Olmsted  Bros.,  Brookline,  Mass J  1905 

DeForest,  Alling  S.,  Sibley  Block,  Rochester,  N.  Y .        .        .        .   F  1908 

Dow,  Dana  F.,  Ipswich,  Mass j  I(.0, 

Field,  Tracey  C,  23  Park  Street,  Park  Lane  W.,  London,  England   .        .  .        .  J  1903-1904 

Fitz-Randolph,  Edgar,  31  East  27th  Street,  New  York  City J  1908 

Fleming,  Bryant,  Prudential  Building,  Buffalo,  N.  Y.  .        .        .  .        .     J  1903,  F  191 1 

Gallagher,  Percival,  care  of  Olmsted  Bros.,  Brookline,  Mass J  1904,  F  1910 

Gatringer,  Joseph,  The  Arsenal,  Central  Park,  New  York  City J  1906 

Gay,  Wiuard,  W.,  care  of  Brinley  &  Holbrook,  156  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City         .        .        .    J  1906 

Goodrich,  J.  E.,  1326  Prudential  Building,  Buffalo,  N.  Y J  1906- 1907 

Greenleaf,  James  L.,  i  Broadway,  New  York  City        ....  F  1904 

Holton,  Arthur  T.,  42  Broadway,  New  York  City       ....  J  1902 

Hoth,  Frederick  C,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City J1904-1911 

Hubbard,  Henry  V.,  101  Tremont  Street,  Boston,  Mass.     .  .        .     J  1905,  F  1910 

*  Jones,  Miss  Beatrix,  21  East  nth  Street,  New  York  City F  1899 

Kellaway,  Herbert  John,  2a  Park  Street,  Boston,  Mass .        .     J  1908,  F  1912 

Kennard,  Frederick  H.,  220  Devonshire  Street,  Boston,  Mass F  1905 

*Langton,  Daniel  W.,  New  York  City .        .F1899-1909 

Lay,  Charles  Downing,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City J  1904,  F  1910 

Leavttt,  Charles  W.,  Jr.,  220  Broadway,  New  York  City  ...  .        .        .        .   F  1904 

Lollesgaard,  Svend,  156  West  Washington  Street,  Chicago,  III J  1902 

*Lowrie,  Charles  N.,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City F  1899 

Manning,  J.  Woodward,  Boston,  Mass J  1903-1904 

'Manning,  Warren  H.,  Tremont  Building,  Boston,  Mass F  1899 

Mische,  Emanuel  T.,  Portland,  Oregon J  1905 

Morell,  Anthony  Urban,  Palace  Building,  Minneapolis,  Minn J  1906 

Movius,  Hallam  Leonard,  89  State  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  1907 

Munson,  J.  Pomeroy,  Grand  Rapids,  Mich J  1906 

Negus,  Samuel  P.,  6  Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  ^03 

Nichols,  Arthur  Richardson,  Palace  Building,  Minneapolis,  Minn J  1906 

Nolen,  John,  Harvard  Square,  Cambridge,  Mass J  1905,  F  1910 

*Olmsted,  Frederick  Law,  Jr.,  Brookline,  Mass F  1899 

(7) 


8  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

*Olmsted,  John  Charles,  Brookline,  Mass F 

Outhet,  Rickson  A.,  3  Beaver  Hall  Square,  Montreal,  Canada J  1910,   F 

Parce,  William  W.,  Boulder,  Colorado (reinstated  1907)         F  1900- 

Parker,  Carl  R.,  Fidelity  Building,  Portland,  Maine J 

*Parsons,  Samuel,  Jr.,  St.  James  Building,  New  York  City F 

*Pentecost,  George  F.,  Jr.,  119  East  19th  Street,  New  York  City F 

Phillips,  T.  G.,  603  Breitmeyer  Building,  Detroit,  Mich J 

Pilat,  C.  F.,  52  Broadway,  New  York  City J  1903,  F 

Pray,  James  Sturgis,  *e-Garden  Street,  Cambridge,  Mass J  190J3F 

Punchard,  Chas.  P.,  Jr.,  Schofield  Building,  Cleveland,  Ohio J 

Roy,  Wm.  Ormiston,  Montreal,  Canada J 

Russell,  Albert  B.,  New  York  City J  1899- 

Saltus,  Rollin  Sanford,  9  East  41st  Street,  New  York  City J 

Schermerhorn,  Richard,  Jr.,  347  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City J 

Sears,  Thomas  W.,  2  Charles  Street,  Brookline,  Mass J 

Shurtleff,  Arthur  A.,  89  State  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  1899,  F 

*Simonds,  Ossian  C,  Buena  Avenue,  Chicago F 

Taylor,  Albert  D.,  care  of  W.  H.  Manning,  Tremont  Building,  Boston,  Mass J 

Tealdi,  Aubrey,  University  Club,  Ann  Arbor,  Mich J 

Todd,  Frederick  G.,  Montreal,  Canada J  1900,  F  1905- 

Townsend,  Frederick  de  Peyster,  Prudential  Building,  Buffalo,  N.  Y. 

Underhill,  Arthur,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City J 

*Vaux,  Downing,  143  Liberty  Street,  New  York  City F 

Vitale,  Ferruccio,  St.  James  Building,  New  York  City J  1904,  F 

Weinrichter,  Ralph  M.,  542  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City J 

Wheelwright,  Robert,  103  Park  Avenue,  New  York  City J 

White,  Henry  P.,  101  Tremont  Street,  Boston,  Mass J  1905- 

Williams,  Howard  S.,  Prudential  Building,  Buffalo,  N.  Y J  1906- 

Wyman,  Alanson  Phelps,  923  Lumber  Exchange,  Minneapolis,  Minn J  1905,  F 


Q12 
902 


907 
912 
906 
912 


906 
904 
906 
905 
899 
908 
912 
907 
905 
906 
899 
908 
905 
910 
911 
907 
912 


EXHIBITIONS 

American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects.  First  Annual  Exhibition  Catalogue,  1002.  From  March 
26  to  April  10.  Room  1328,  St.  James  Building,  Broadway  and  26th  Street,  New  York  City,  Downing 
Vaux,  Secretary,  68  Bible  House,  New  York  City. 

Miss  Beatrix  Jones,  New  York  City. 

Plan  of  Grounds,  Anson  Phelps  Stokes,  Esq.,  Darien,  Conn.    Isometric  Drawing  of  same.    Perspective 
Sketch  of  same. 

Manning  Brothers,  Boston,  Mass. 

Topographical  Map  of  Hampton  Normal  and  Agricultural  Institute,  Hampton,  Va.    General  Plan 
for  Improvement  of  same.    Bird's-eye  View  of  Plan  of  same. 

Olmsted  Brothers,  Brookline,  Mass. 

Topographical  Map  of  West  Side  Park,  Newark,  N.  J.    General  Plan  for  same.    Grading  Plan  for 

same.    Planting  Plan  for  same. 
Topographical  Map  of  Grounds  of  Mrs.  Wm.  Thaw,  Jr.,  Sewickley,  Pa.  General  Plan  for  Improvement 

of  same.   Grading  Plan  for  same.    Planting  Plan  for  same. 
General  Plan  for  Improvement  of  Grounds  of  Mr.  Charles  S.  Guthrie,  New  London,  Conn.    Three 

drawings,  colored,  in  competition. 

Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.,  New  York  City. 

Grounds  of  J.  B.  Haggin,  Lexington,  Ky.    Contour  Map  of  same.    General  Plan  of  same.    Drainage 

Plan  of  same.    Perspective  Sketch  of  same.    Planting  Plan  of  same. 
Grounds  of  James  Clark,  Mamaroneck,  N.  Y.   General  Plan,  including  Drainage  Scheme. 

Geo.  F.  Pentecost,  Jr.,  New  York  City. 

Grounds  of  F.  W.  R.  Eschmann,  Yonkers,  N.  Y.    Sketch  of  Pergola  for  same.     Isometric  Sketch  of 
Lawn  and  Garden.   Formal  Design  for  Grounds. 

O.  C.  Simonds,  Chicago,   III. 

Plans  of  a  subdivision.  Two  Plans  of  Drives,  with  Photographs  of  same. 

Downing  Vaux,  New  York  City. 

General  Plan  for  College  Hill  Park,  Poughkeepsk-,  N.  Y. 

General  Plan  for  Grounds  of  Home  for  the  Friendless,  Scranton,  Pa.  Sheet  showing  six  separate  Designs 
for  Laying  Out  Grounds. 

Exhibition  of  works  of  members  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A.,  as  part  of  the  Sixth  Annual  Exhibition  of  the  Mu- 
nicipal Art  Society  of  New  York,  March  13-31,  1907.  Names  of  exhibitors :  G.  F.  Pentecost,  F.  Vitale,  Charles 
N.  Lowrie,  and  D.  W.  Langton  associated,  Downing  Vaux,  Townsend  and  Fleming,  Thomas  W.  Sears, 
Harold  A.  Caparn,  Olmsted  Bros.,  C.  W.  Leavitt,  James  L.  Greenleaf,  Hinchman,  Pilat  and  Tooker. 


(9) 


CONSTITUTION 

ADOPTED    MARCH    6,   1899 

i.  The  name  of  this  organization  shall  be  the  American  Society  of  Landscape 
Architects. 

2.  The  objects  of  this  society  shall  be  to  promote  good  fellowship  among  its  members 
and  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  profession. 

3.  The  membership  shall  consist  of  Fellows,  Juniors,  and  Associates. 

4.  Fellows  shall  be  landscape  architects  or  landscape  gardeners  in  good  standing. 
A  landscape  architect  or  a  landscape  gardener  in  good  standing  is  one  who  practises  the 
art  of  arranging  land  and  landscape  for  use  and  enjoyment,  whose  compensation  is  received 
directly  from  his  client,  and  not  directly  or  indirectly  from  labor,  plants,  or  other  material 
used  in  fitting  land  for  use,  or  from  persons  supplying  the  same.  Fellows  retiring  from  the 
practice  of  the  profession  and  not  engaging  in  business  may  be  continued  as  Fellows  by 
vote  of  the  Society.  A  Fellow  shall  be  at  least  thirty  years  of  age  and  shall  have  prac- 
tised the  profession  for  five  years. 

5.  Juniors  shall  be  students  who  are  preparing  to  practise  the  profession;  they  shall 
have  no  vote  and  shall  not  be  eligible  to  office.  A  Junior  shall  be  at  least  twenty-one 
years  of  age,  and  shall  cease  to  be  a  Junior  ten  years  after  election. 

6.  Associates  shall  be  persons  who  have  performed  notable  service  in  advancing 
the  interest  of  the  profession;  they  shall  have  no  vote  and  shall  not  be  eligible  to  office. 

7.  The  officers  shall  be  a  President,  a  Vice-President,  a  Treasurer,  and  a  Secretary, 
who  with  three  others  shall  constitute  an  Executive  Committee. 

8.  These  officers  shall  hold  office  until  their  successors  are  elected  and  have  qualified. 

9.  Officers  and  members  shall  be  elected  by  the  ballot  of  a  majority  of  the  Fellows, 
mailed  or  handed  to  the  Secretary. 

10.  There  shall  be  an  annual  meeting  in  the  month  of  January  for  the  election  of 
officers  and  the  transaction  of  business. 

11.  One-third  of  the  Fellows  shall  constitute  a  quorum  at  the  annual  meeting. 

12.  All  business  shall  be  reported  upon  by  the  Executive  Committee  before  being 
voted  upon  by  the  Society. 

13.  Any  public  expression  of  opinion  intended  to  represent  the  collective  opinion 
of  the  Society  must  receive  a  majority  vote  of  all  the  Fellows  by  ballot  mailed  or  handed 
to  the  Secretary. 

14.  Proposed  amendments  to  this  Constitution  must  be  submitted  in  writing  by 
the  Secretary  to  all  members  at  least  two  months  before  a  regular  meeting,  and  to  be 
adopted  must  receive  the  ballots  of  two-thirds  of  all  the  Fellows,  said  ballots  to  be  mailed 
or  handed  to  the  Secretary  at  said  meeting. 

BY-LAWS 

ARTICLE   I 

DUTIES    OF   OFFICERS 

Section  i.  The  President,  or  in  his  absence,  the  Vice-President,  shall  preside  at 
all  meetings  of  the  Society  and  of  the  Executive  Committee. 

(10) 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF   LANDSCAPE   ARCHITECTS  n 

Sec.  2.  The  Secretary  shall  keep  a  record  of  all  proceedings  of  the  Society,  notify 
members  of  their  election,  and  issue  all  notices  and  perform  such  other  duties  as  may 
be  assigned  to  him  by  the  Executive  Committee. 

Sec.  3.  The  Treasurer  shall  receive  all  money  due  the  Society  and  receipt  for  the 
same.  He  shall  disburse  the  funds  only  upon  the  order  of  the  President.  He  shall  keep 
the  accounts,  which  shall  at  all  times  be  open  to  the  inspection  of  the  officers  and  shall 
report  at  the  annual  meeting.  His  accounts  shall  be  audited  by  a  committee  chosen  by 
the  Executive  Committee. 

ARTICLE    II 

EXECUTIVE   COMMITTEE 

Section   i.  Four  members  of  the  Executive  Committee  shall  constitute  a  quorum. 

Sec.  2.  At  the  meeting  at  which  this  Constitution  is  adopted  there  shall  be  elected 
a  member  of  the  Executive  Committee  to  serve  until  the  meeting  in  January  1900;  one 
to  serve  until  the  meeting  in  January,  1901,  and  one  until  the  meeting  in  January,  1902; 
and  at  each  Annual  Meeting  of  the  Society  there  shall  be  elected  a  member  of  the  Executive 
Committee  to  serve  three  years. 

The  Executive  Committee  shall  put  into  effect  the  votes  of  the  Society;  shall  be 
the  custodian  of  all  its  property;  shall  authorize  contracts  and  purchases,  but  shall  not 
incur  any  liabilities  exceeding  the  amount  of  the  unappropriated  funds  in  the  hands  of  the 
Treasurer;  shall  consider  and  report  upon  all  business  to  be  acted  upon  by  the  Society; 
shall  inquire  into  the  standing  and  qualifications  of  all  applicants;  shall  present  to  the 
Society  for  its  vote  such  applicants  as  they  approve  with  a  statement  of  their  qualifica- 
tions, and  shall  establish  rules  for  the  regulation  of  its  proceedings. 

ARTICLE   III 

EXPULSIONS 

A  member  may  be  expelled  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  Fellows. 

ARTICLE   IV 

DUES 

The  yearly  dues  of  Fellows  shall  be  ten  dollars,  of  Junior  members  five  dollars,  and 
of  Associate  members  ten  dollars.  Persons  joining  after  July  1st  shall  be  exempt  from 
dues  until  after  the  following  January. 

ARTICLE  V 

MEETING 

The  annual  meeting  shall  be  the  second  Tuesday  in  January,  at  an  hour  and  place 
to  be  determined  by  the  Executive  Committee  thirty  days  before  said  meeting,  of  which 
notice  shall  be  given  all  members. 

ARTICLE  VI 

AMENDMENTS 

Amendments  to  these  By-Laws  may  be  made  with  the  approval  of  the  Executive 
Committee  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  present  at  a  regular  meeting  after  having 


12  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

been  submitted  to  all  members  in  writing  by  the  Secretary  at  least  thirty  days  before 
said  meeting. 

AMENDMENTS    TO    THE    CONSTITUTION 

Article  4.  Amended  by  adding  the  following,  proposed  by  F.  L.  Olmsted,  March 
5,   1907: 

Provided,  however,  that  candidates  who  shall  have  practised  the  profession  while 
Juniors  of  the  Society  for  not  less  than  two  years  and  who  shall  have  produced  work 
sufficient  in  amount,  in  kind  and  in  quality  to  afford  conclusive  evidence  of  professional 
competence  may  be  elected  Fellows  before  having  completed  five  years  of  professional 
practice.      (Printed,   1909.) 

Art.  5.  Amendment  proposed  by  the  Executive  Committee,  November  20,  1901. 
Adopted  January   14,   1902: 

Juniors  shall  be  landscape  architects  who  have  practised  less  than  five  years,  or  students 
who  are  preparing  to  practise  the  profession;  they  shall  have  no  vote  and  shall  not  be 
eligible  to  office.  A  Junior  shall  be  at  least  twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  shall  cease  to 
be  a  Junior  ten  years  after  election.    (Printed,   1902.) 

Art.  5.  Proposed  by  F.  L.  Olmsted,  March  5,  1907: 

Juniors  shall  be  landscape  architects,  or  landscape  gardeners  who  may  not  have 
practised  the  profession  sufficiently  long  to  comply  with  the  requirements  for  Fellowship, 
or  students,  or  landscape  architects'  assistants,  who  are  preparing  to  practise  the  profes- 
sion; they  shall  have  no  vote  and  shall  not  be  eligible  to  office.  A  Junior  shall  be  at  least 
twenty-one  years  of  age,  and  shall  cease  to  be  a  Junior  ten  years  after  election. 

Art.  9.  Officers  shall  be  elected  by  the  ballot  of  a  majority  of  the  Fellows;  mem- 
bers shall  be  elected  by  the  ballot  of  two-thirds  of  the  Fellows,  mailed  or  handed  to  the 
Secretary.    (Printed,  1902.) 

AMENDMENTS    TO    THE   BY-LAWS 

Moved  by  F.  L.  Olmsted,  March  5,  1907: 

ARTICLE   III 

MEMBERSHIP 

Section  i.  The  name  of  any  candidate  for  membership  shall  be  submitted  to  a  sub- 
committee, to  be  known  as  the  Examining  Board,  consisting  of  three  members  of  the 
Executive  Committee,  one  of  whom  shall  be  the  Secretary,  and  not  more  than  two  of 
whom  shall  have  their  place  of  business  in  the  same  state. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  Examining  Board  to  inquire  diligently  into  the  fitness 
of  each  candidate,  and  to  report  favorably  to  the  Executive  Committee  the  names  of 
those  of  whose  fitness  they  find  satisfactory  evidence.  As  one  means  of  securing  information 
in  regard  to  candidates  the  Examining  Board  shall  mail  to  each  member  of  every  class 
in  the  Society  an  inquiry  in  regard  to  each  candidate,  asking  for  an  expression  of  opinion 
as  to  the  probable  fitness  of  the  candidate  in  respect  to  professional  attainment  and  hon- 
orable personal  and  professional  standing. 

The  Examining  Board  shall  not  act  upon  the  name  of  a  candidate  within  less  than 
one  month  after  asking  for  the  opinion  of  members  in  regard  to  him. 


OF   LANDSCAPE   ARCHITECTS  i3 

Sec.  2.  Before  reporting  favorably  upon  the  name  of  a  candidate  for  Fellowship, 
the  Examining  Board  shall  secure  explicit  information  in  regard  to  works  of  landscape 
architecture  done  by  the  candidate  in  the  practice  of  the  profession,  sufficient  in  amount, 
in  kind  and  in  quality  to  afford  satisfactory  evidence  of  professional  competence. 

The  term  "shall  have  practised  the  profession,"  as  used  in  Article  4  of  the  Consti- 
tution, shall  be  interpreted  to  mean  that  the  candidate's  chief  occupation  shall  have  been 
the  practice  of  landscape  architecture  upon  his  or  her  independent  professional  respon- 
sibility, and  directly  for  his  or  her  own  clients  or  those  of  a  firm  in  which  the  candidate 
shall  have  been  at  the  time  a  responsible  member.  A  year  during  which  a  candidate  shall 
have  thus  practised  landscape  architecture  occasionally  or  in  part  while  mainly  engaged 
in  other  occupations  or  in  the  employ  of  another  landscape  architect  shall  not  be  reckoned 
as  a  year  of  professional  practice. 

In  recommending  a  candidate  for  fellowship  the  Examining  Board  shall  report  in 
writing  the  grounds  upon  which  the  recommendation  is  based. 

Sec.  3.  Before  reporting  favorably  upon  the  name  of  a  candidate  for  Junior  mem- 
bership the  Examining  Board  shall  satisfy  themselves  that  the  candidate's  professional 
training,  capacity  and  aims  are  such  as  may  reasonably  be  expected  after  further  expe- 
rience to  fit  the  candidate  for  successful  practice  as  a  landscape  architect  and  for  fellowship 
in  the  Society.  The  Examining  Board  shall  require  the  candidate  for  Junior  membership 
or  his  proposer  to  submit  evidence  of  the  extent  of  his  professional  training  in  artistic 
design  and  of  his  technical  attainment  in  respect  to  plants  and  the  making  and  execution 
of  planting  plans,  in  respect  to  grading  and  the  designing  and  direction  of  minor  engineer- 
ing work,  and  in  respect  to  the  designing  of  such  minor  architectural  structures  as  occur 
in  landscape  architecture. 

In  recommending  a  candidate  for  Junior  membership  the  Examining  Board  shall 
report  in  writing  the  grounds  upon  which  the  recommendation  is  based. 

Sec.  4.  The  names  of  candidates  favorably  reported  by  the  Examining  Board  shall, 
upon  the  vote  of  the  Executive  Committee,  be  mailed  by  the  Secretary,  with  copies 
of  the  reports  of  the  Examining  Board  and  with  blank  ballots,  to  all  the  Fellows  of  the 
Society  not  less  than  one  month  before  the  regular  meeting  of  the  Society  at  which  the 
candidates  will  come  up  for  election,  together  with  a  notice  of  the  date  of  meeting.  Ballots 
for  or  against  the  election  of  a  candidate  shall  be  submitted  to  the  Secretary  by  mail  or 
otherwise  before  the  closing  of  the  polls  at  the  meeting  specified  in  the  notice. 

Sec.  5.  A  member  may  be  expelled  by  a  two-thirds  vote  of  all  the  Fellows  mailed 
or  handed  to  the  Secretary  at  a  regular  meeting.     (Printed,    1909.) 

Amendment  proposed  by  the  Executive  Committee,  November  20,  1901.  Adopted 
January   14,   1902: 

ARTICLE   VI 

AMENDMENTS 

Amendments  to  these  By-Laws  may  be  made,  with  the  approval  of  the  Executive 
Committee,  by  a  majority  vote  of  the  members  present  at  a  regular  meeting,  or  by  letter 
ballots  after  having  been  submitted  to  all  members  in  writing  by  the  Secretary  at  least 
thirty   days   before   said   meeting.     (Printed,   1902.) 


TREASURER'S  ACCOUNT 

Receipts  brought  forward $548   10 

Receipts $1 10  00      Expenditures: 

Expenditures:  Stationery,  printing,  sundries  .   $38   15 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries   .   $32  05  Rent  of  room,   National  Arts 

32  05  Club 8  77 


46  92 


Balance,  December  31 $77  95 

Balance,  December  31 $501    18 

1900 

Balance  forward $77  95  1904 

Receipts 1 50  00 

Balance  forward $501    18 

$227  95       Receipts 190  00 

Expenditures:  

D.  W.  Langton,  traveling  $691    18 

expenses $17   12  Expenditures: 

Printing,  stationery,  sundries    .      1979  Olmsted- Vaux  Memorial $43  45 

Periodicals 7  00  Stationery,  printing,  sundries  .      36  20 

■   43  Qj  Room  rent,  National  Arts  Club, 

incidentals 26  06 


Balance,  December  31 $184  04 


1901  Balance,  December  31 $585  47 


Balance  forward. 
Receipts 


$585  47 

Expenditures:  Keceipts 235  00 

Printing,  stationery,  sundries    .    $10  20 


Balance,  December  31 


1902 


$184  04 

140  00 

1905 

Balance  forward 

Receipts 

S3 24  04 

IO    20 

Expenditures: 

S313    84 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries 

S136 

80 

Reporting  meetings 

44 

«5 

Annual  meeting  expenses 

12 

66 

Lantern-slides 

8 

85 

$313    84 

155    OO 

$468    84 

1906 

80   84 

Balance  forward 

Receipts 

Balance  forward $313  84  202    .5 

Receipts 

Expenditures: 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries    .    $18  34 
Expenses  of  exhibition 62  50 

355  28 


Balance,  December  31 S388  00 

$973  29 
Expenditures: 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries  .$149  64 

Balance  forward $388  00  Reporting  meetings 177   15 

Receipts 160  jo  32679 


$548   10       Balance,  December  51 S646  50 

(14) 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 


13 


Balance  forward. 
Receipts 


Expenditures: 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries  .$156  15 

Reporting  meetings 127  75 

Committee  on  Seal 6  34 


Balance,  December  31. 


1908 

$646  50      Balance  forward 

280  25       Receipts: 

Annual  dues $360  10 

$926  75           Profits  from  sale  of  Repton  ....    125  00 
Interest  on  bank  deposit 26  24 


290  24 


$636  51 


$636  51 


$1147  85 


Expenditures: 

Stationery,  printing,  sundries  .$294  59 

Expenses  on  sale  of  Repton 125  50 

Stereopticon 1  o  00 

C.  H.  Walker,    traveling    ex- 
penses       14  00 

A.  A.  Shurtleff,  illustrations  of 

paper 15  00 

C.  D.  Lay,  Ass't.  Secretary.. . .     50  00 


Balance,  December  31. 


Note:    Receipts  include  annual  dues  and  interest  on  bank  deposits,  unless  otherwise  itemized, 
writing  and  mimeographing.     Sundries  include  stamps,  exchange  on  out-of-town   checks,  etc. 


3638    76 
eludes  type- 


COMMITTEES   AND   DELEGATES 


1899 

Constitution. — S.  Parsons,  W.  H.  Manning,  D. 
Vaux,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  O.  C.  Simonds.  January  4, 
March  6,  1899  D. 

Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Monument,  Location  of — C.  N. 
Lowrie,  D.  W.  Langton.  December  12,  Jan- 
uary 9,  1900. 

1900 

Riverside  Park,  Assembly  Bill  1643. — J.  C.  Olmsted, 

D.  W.  Langton.  April  10. 
Paris  Exposition,  iqoo,  Report  on — C.  N.  Lowrie. 

April  10,  September  26,  1900. 
Sherman  Statue,   Location  of — S.   Parsons,  D.  W. 

Langton,   D.  Vaux.    April    10,   September  26, 

1900. 
Fine  Arts  Federation. — S.  Parsons.   April  10. 


Exhibition. — S.    Parsons,    D.  Vaux.     January  8, 
November  20,  1901. 

Note:    The  first  date  given  is  that  of  announcement  of  appointment,  when  known.   Other  dates  1 
which  reference  to  committee  is  reported.    R — report.    D — discharged. 


1903 

Schedule  oj  Charges  and  Practice. — J.  C.  Olmsted, 
W.  H.  Manning,  N.  Barrett.  January  13, 
March  5,  1903,  January  12,  1904  R. 

Application  Blank  Jor  Admissions. — J.  C.  Olmsted, 
W.  H.  Manning,  N.  Barrett.  March  5, 
March  14,  1905  R. 

Memorial  Tablet  to  Olmsted  and  Vaux. — S.  Parsons, 
C.  N.  Lowrie,  D.  W.  Langton.  December  5, 
January  12,  1904,  January  17,  1905  D. 


1904 

Exhibition. — N.  Barrett,  S.  Parsons,  D.  W. 
Langton,  D.  Vaux.  January  12,  February  9, 
1904,  February  17,  1905  D. 

1906 

Rudolph  Ulricb,  Resolution  of  Sympathy  on  Death  0/ — ■ 
F.  L.  Olmsted,  D.  W.  Langton,  S.  Parsons. 
November  13. 


those  of  meetings  1 


1 6 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 


1906,  continued 

Editing  Reprints  o]  Classics. — J.  Nolen.   November 
13,    February   5,    1907,    December    10,    1907   R. 

History  oj  Central  Park. — Samuel  Parsons.  Decem- 
ber 1906. 

1907 

Editing  Proceedings. — H.  A.  Caparn,  J.   S.   Pray, 

D.  Vaux.   January  8. 
Delegate  to  Washington,  50th  anniversary  A.  I.  A. — H. 

A.  Caparn.  January  8. 
Seal. — Miss   Jones,    F.    L.   Olmsted,   J.   Nolen. 


January  8,  February  5,  1907  R,  March  5,  1907  R, 
December  29,  1908. 

Nursery  Slock,  Raising  Standard  o] — W.  H.  Man- 
ning, J.  F.  Dawson  (Olmsted  Bros.),  O.  C. 
Simonds.  Nurserymen :  Charles  J.  Maloy 
(Ellwanger  &  Barry),  W.  W.  Harper  (Andorra 
Nursery  Co.),  J.  H.  Dayton  (Storrs  &  Har- 
rison).  February  5,  1907. 

Associate  Members,  Admission  of — C.  W.  Leavitt, 
F.  L.  Olmsted,  C.  N.  Lowrie.    March  5. 

Invitation  from  American  Institute  of  Architects. — 
C.  N.  Lowrie.   November  12. 


EXECUTIVE   COMMITTEES 


-President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 
Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Secretary,  Daniel  W.  Langton. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Downing  Vaux,  1902. 
O.  C.  Simonds,  1901. 
Warren  H.  Manning,  1900. 

-President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 
Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
Warren  H.  Manning,  1903. 

-President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 
Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
O.  C.  Simonds,  1904. 

-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Vice-President,  Nathan  F.  Barrett. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
John  C.  Olmsted,  1905. 


1904. — President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 

Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
O.  C.  Simonds,  1907. 


1905. — President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 

Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
James  L.  Greenleaf,  1908. 


-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Vice-President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
Charles  W.  Leavitt,  Jr.,  1909. 

-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Vice-President,  John  C.  Olmsted. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
Harold  A.  Caparn,  1910. 


1903. — President,  Nathan  F.  Barrett. 

Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  George  F.  Pentecost,  Jr. 
Warren  H.  Manning,  1906. 


-President,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted,  Jr. 
Vice-President,  Ossian  C.  Simonds. 
Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie. 
Secretary,  Downing  Vaux. 
James  L.  Greenleaf,  191 1. 


Transactions  of  The  American  Society  of 

Landscape  Architects  from  its  Inception  in  1899 

to  the  End  of  1908 

January  4,  1899.  Meeting  at  the  office  of  Parsons  &  Pentecost,  St.  James  Building,  New  York  City, 
for  the  purpose  of  organizing  the  American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects,  in  pursuance  of  a  circular  letter 
sent  out  about  February,  1898,  by  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.,  and  afterwards  signed  by  Downing  Vaux,  Charles 
W.  Lowrie,  George  F.  Pentecost,  Jr.,  and  Daniel  W.  Langton. 

Present:  Nathan  F.  Barrett,  New  Rochelle,  N.  Y.;  Beatrix  Jones,  East  11th  Street,  New  York  City; 
Daniel  W.  Langton,  East  23d  Street,  New  York  City;  Charles  N.  Lowrie,  1 56  Fifth  Avenue,  New  York  City; 
Warren  H.  Manning,  Boston,  Mass.;  John  C.  Olmsted,  Brookline,  Mass.;  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.,  St.  James 
Building,  New  York  City;  George  F.  Pentecost,  Jr.,  St.  James  Building,  New  York  City;  Ossian  C.  Simonds, 
Station  X,  Chicago,  III.,  and  Downing  Vaux,  Bible  House,  New  York  City. 

Mr.  John  Charles  Olmsted  was  elected  President,  pro  tern.,  and  Mr.  Daniel  W.  Langton,  Secretary, 
pro  tern. 

Messrs.  Parsons,  Vaux,  Manning,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  and  Simonds  were  constituted  a  committee  to  draft 
a  constitution,  and  report  at  the  next  meeting. 

The  following  resolution,  presented  by  Mr.  Parsons,  was  adopted:  That  the  Secretary  be  authorized 
to  write  to  the  proper  authorities,  asking  if  the  plans  offered  in  competition  for  League  Island  Park, 
Philadelphia,  are  to  be  exhibited. 

March  6,  1899.    Meeting  at  the  office  of  Parsons  &  Pentecost,  St.  James  Building,  New  York  City. 

Present:   Messrs.  Langton,  Lowrie,  Manning,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pentecost,  and  Vaux. 

The  committee  on  drafting  a  constitution  presented  its  report  which,  with  slight  modifications,  was 
adopted  and  the  committee  discharged. 

The  following  officers  were  then  elected  by  acclamation  to  serve  until  the  next  regular  election  pro- 
vided by  the  constitution:  President,  John  C.  Olmsted;  Vice-President,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.;  Secretary, 
Daniel  W.  Langton;  Treasurer,  Charles  N.  Lowrie;  additional  members  of  the  Executive  Committee, 
Downing  Vaux,  O.  C.  Simonds,  and  Warren  H.  Manning. 

December  12,  1899.  Meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  at  the  office  of  Parsons  &  Pentecost, 
St.  James  Building,  New  York  City. 

Present:    Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  Langton,  and  Vaux. 

Voted:  That  the  Executive  Committee,  A.  S.  L.  A.,  is  opposed  to  the  location  of  the  Soldiers'  and 
Sailors'  Monument  at  present  proposed,  for  the  following  reasons: 

(1)  A  monument  of  such  importance  in  this  locality  should  be  placed  on  the  axis  of  89th  Street  as 
well  as  that  of  the  Riverside  Drive. 

(2)  The  monument,  as  at  present  designed,  cannot  be  placed  at  the  intersection  of  the  axes  of  89th 
Street  and  Riverside  Drive  without  blocking  the  promenade  of  Riverside  Drive. 

(3)  The  character  of  the  design  contemplated  obviously  requires  a  much  larger  area  of  land  about 
it  treated  architecturally  in  harmony  with  it. 

The  Secretary  was  instructed  to  transmit  copies  of  the  same  to  the  following:  Hon.  A.  Van  Wyck, 
Mayor,  City  Hall,  New  York  City;  Hon.  Randolph  Guggenheimer,  President  City  Council,  City  Hall, 
New  York  City;  Hon.  Bird  C.  Coler,  Controller,  14  Stewart  Building,  New  York  City;  Hon.  Thomas  L. 
Feitner,  President  Tax  Board,  280  Broadway,  New  York  City,  and  Hon.  John  Whalen,  Corporation 
Counsel,  Tryon  Row,  New  York  City. 

January  9,  1900.  First  annual  meeting  and  first  dinner  of  the  Society,  at  the  Hotel  Martin,  9th 
Street  and  University  Place,  New  York  City. 

Present:    Miss  Bullard,  Miss  Jones,  and  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  Langton,  Vaux, 

(17) 


18  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

Manning,  Pentecost,  and  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  and,  at  the  dinner,  Mr.  Albert  B.  Russell,  Junior  Member,  and 
Mr.  F.  E.  Carle,  editor  of  the  "Commercial  Advertiser." 

Among  the  other  matters  discussed  was  the  important  one  of  the  relation  of  the  Society  to  Municipal 
Art,  and  especially  to  the  location  of  the  proposed  Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Monument. 

February  13,  1900.    First  stated  meeting  and  dinner  at  Hotel  Jefferson,  New  York. 
Present:   Miss  BuIIard  and  Messrs.  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  and  Vaux. 
Official  action  deferred  on  account  of  lack  of  quorum. 

Letter  from  Mr.  Fred  S.  Lamb  regarding  preservation  of  Palisades  read  and  Secretary  requested  to 
write  to  Albany  for  copy  of  the  bill. 

February  27,  1900.  Meeting  of  the  Executive  Committee  at  National  Arts  Club,  37  West  34th 
Street,  New  York  City. 

Present:   Miss  Jones  and  Messrs.  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  and  Vaux. 

Assembly  Bill  No.  651  N.  Y.,  dated  February  1,  1900,  having  been  called  to  the  attention  of  the 
Society  by  Mr.  Fred  S.  Lamb,  Secretary  of  the  Palisades  Committee  of  the  Society  for  the  Preser- 
vation of  Scenic  and  Historic  Places  and  Objects,  the  following  letter  was  signed  by  members  and 
sent,  and  also  copies  of  the  letter  were  sent  to  all  Fellows  of  the  Society  with  request  to  sign  and  forward 
to  Albany: 

"New  York,  February  16,  1900. 
"Hon.  J.  P.  Allds,  Chairman  Ways  and  Means  Committee,  Albany,  N.  Y. 

"Dear  Sir:  We  have  read  Assembly  Act  No.  651  Int.,  dated  February  1,  1900,  and  entitled,  'An 
Act  to  provide  for  the  selection,  location,  appropriation,  and  management  of  certain  lands  along  the  Pali- 
sades of  the  Hudson  River  for  an  Interstate  Park  and  thereby  preserve  the  scenery  of  the  Palisades,  and 
we  hereby  approve  of  its  measures  and  urge  the  members  of  the  Assembly  to  pass  the  act  at  the  present 
session.  Yours  truly, 

[Signed]    "John   C.   Olmsted,    President; 

Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.,  Vice-President; 

Charles  N.  Lowrie,  Treasurer; 

Downing  Vaux,  Secretary; 

Beatrix  Jones,  Member  of  Executive  Committee; 

Daniel  W.  Langton,  j 

Frederick  Law  Olmsted,  Jr.,  V  Members." 

Geo.  F.  Pentecost,  Jr.,  ) 

March  13,  1900.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  National  Arts  Club  House,  New  York  City. 

Present:    Miss  Bullard,  Miss  Jones,  and  Messrs.  Barrett,  Langton,  J.  C.  Olmsted  and  Parsons. 

The  question  being  raised  by  Mr.  Langton,  it  was  unanimously  decided  that  Junior  Members  should 
be  admitted  to  subscription  dinners. 

Mr.  Parsons  having  reported  to  the  Secretary  that  there  was  a  question  whether  there  would  be 
a  public  exhibition  of  the  competitive  plans  for  parks  at  Yonkers,  N.  Y.,  for  which  parks  several  members 
had  submitted  plans;  the  following  letter  was  approved  by  the  Society  and  directed  to  be  sent  to  the 
President  of  the  Park  Commission  at  Yonkers,  N.  Y.: 

"Dear  Sir:  I  am  directed  by  the  American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects  to  write  to  you  and  urge 
that  a  public  exhibition  be  given  of  the  plans  submitted  in  the  park  competition,  which  you  are  about  to 
decide. 

"It  is  customary  to  hold  such  an  exhibition  when  a  profession  is  invited  to  enter  a  competition,  and 
a  chance  to  see  and  compare  the  plans  is  certainly  due  to  the  public  and  to  those  competing. 

"Yours  truly,  Downing  Vaux,  Secretary." 

Mr.  Langton  called  attention  to  Assembly  Bill  No.  1643,  Int.  1293,  introduced  at  Albany,  March  1, 
1900,  "To  regulate  the  use  of  grounds,"  etc.,  and  intended  to  preserve  the  Riverside  Park.  The  act  was 
read  by  the  Secretary,  and  the  following  resolutions  unanimously  passed,  the  Secretary  being  directed  to 
send  a  copy  of  same  to  Assemblyman  Weekes,  at  Albany,  N.  Y.: 

"Whereas,  There  has  recently  been  introduced  into  the  Legislature  of  the  State  of  New  York  a  bill 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  19 

(No.  1643,  Int.  1293)  for  the  purpose  of  preserving  Riverside  Drive  and  Park  by  presenting  the  erection  of 
such  structures  as  would  sensibly  intercept  the  view  and  mar  the  natural  beauty  of  the  scenery,  therefore 

"Resolved,  That  this  association  heartily  endorses  such  efforts  to  protect  Riverside  Drive  and 
Park,  and 

"Resolved,  That  this  resolution  be  transmitted  to  Assemblyman  Weekes  who  introduced  such 
bill,  and 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  be  appointed  by  the  President,  which  shall  be  authorized  to  attend  any 
hearing  on  said  bill  and  represent  the  views  of  the  association." 

The  question  of  holding  a  spring  exhibition  in  the  National  Arts  Club  gallery,  the  use  of  the  gallery 
having  been  offered  by  said  club,  was  raised,  and  it  was  decided  to  thank  Mr.  Lamb  for  the  offer  and  report 
that  the  spring  work  was  so  near  that  the  Society  had  decided  to  postpone  the  exhibition  until  autumn 
when  the  Executive  Committee  would  report  on  same. 

Voted:  That  in  future,  before  the  Executive  Committee  nominates  new  members,  the  names  and 
qualifications  of  same  be  sent  to  all  members,  and  ninety  days  allowed  to  elapse  before  said  names  be  again 
taken  up  by  the  Executive  Committee. 

April  10,  1900.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Pentecost,  Langton,  Lowrie,  Parce,  Parsons,  Simonds,  and  Vaux, 
Fellows;   Messrs.  Armstrong  and  Russell,  Juniors. 

Mr.  Langton  reported  that,  on  the  President's  appointment  by  telegraph,  he  had  attended  the  hearing 
at  Albany  on  Assembly  Bill  No.  1643,  that  the  bill  had  been  reported  to  committee,  and  that  favorable 
action  was  anticipated.  Mr.  J.  C.  Olmsted  and  Mr.  Langton  were  appointed  a  committee  to  follow  up  the 
matter. 

Voted:  That  Mr.  Lowrie  be  authorized  to  represent  the  Society  at  the  Paris  Exposition,  and  report 
on  same. 

Messrs.  Parsons,  Langton,  and  Vaux  were  appointed  a  committee  to  report  on  the  location  of  the 
Sherman  statue. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Parsons,  that  a  committee  be  appointed  to  wait  on  the  President  of  the 
Fine  Arts  Federation  to  ask  that  the  A.  S.  L.  A.  have  a  representative  on  the  Fine  Arts  Federation  Committee. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Olmsted,  that  members  send  to  the  Secretary  a  list  of  their  works,  both  those 
that  have  been  carried  out  and  those  that  have  not,  said  list  to  be  for  the  information  of  the  Society  only. 

Voted:  That  an  exhibition  be  held  in  New  York  between  January  1  and  March  31,  1901,  said  exhi- 
bition to  be  open  to  members  and  others  and  to  comprise  plans,  views,  photographs,  etc.,  of  works  that 
have  been  executed,  or  are  in  course  of  execution,  and  that  the  Executive  Committee  formulate  rules  for 
this  exhibition. 

September  26,  1900.    Special  meeting  at  offices  of  Parsons  &  Pentecost,  New  York  City. 

Present:   Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  Langton,  and  Vaux. 

Mr.  Langton  reported  that  Assembly  Bill  No.  1643  had  been  killed  in  committee  at  Albany. 

Mr.  Lowrie  reported  on  his  trip  to  the  Paris  Exposition,  and  that  there  were  no  meetings  of  Landscape 
Architects  while  he  was  in  France. 

Mr.  Parsons  reported  that  the  chances  were  that  the  Sherman  statue  would  not  be  located  on  the  Mall 
in  Central  Park. 

Mr.  Parsons  reported  that  he  had  talked  with  the  President  and  Secretary  of  the  Fine  Arts  Federation, 
and  that  they  consider  their  society  a  national  one.  As  this  was  questioned,  Mr.  Parsons  was  requested  to 
write  for  a  copy  of  the  constitution  of  the  Fine  Arts  Federation. 

November  13, 1900.   Meeting  and  dinner  at  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Miss  BuIIard,  Messrs.  Lowrie,  Langton,  Parsons,  and  Vaux. 

December  11,  1900.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Lowrie,  Manning,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  and  Vaux. 
Voted:    To  discontinue  subscriptions  to  "American  Florist,"  "Gardening,"  "Park  and  Cemetery," 
"Municipal  Affairs,"  and  "American  Gardening." 


20  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

January  8,  1901.    Second  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:   Miss  BuIIard,  Miss  Jones,  and  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  Pentecost,  and  Vaux. 
Voted:  That  the  meetings  of  the  Executive  Committee  should  be  held  subject  to  call,  the  first  meeting 
being  set  for  January  22,  1901,  at  8.00  p.m.,  at  the  offices  of  Messrs.  Parsons  &  Pentecost. 

March  5,  1901.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:   Messrs.  Barrett,  Simonds,  Lowrie,  and  Vaux. 

Mr.  Simonds  suggested  papers  by  volunteers  at  meetings,  names  to  be  selected  by  Secretary. 
Mr.  Simonds  suggested  a  summer  meeting  at  Milwaukee  in  connection  with  that  of  the  American 
Park  and  Outdoor  Art  Association. 

He  was  also  in  favor  of  an  exhibition. 

November  20,  1901.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones  and  Miss  BuIIard,  Messrs.  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  Pentecost, 
Vaux,  and  Mr.  John  S.  Holbrook,  guest  of  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr. 

Voted:  That  the  Committee  on  Exhibition  (Messrs.  Parsons  and  Vaux)  should  consult  with  the 
National  Sculpture  Society  about  a  joint  exhibition,  and  that  if  that  cannot  be  arranged,  the  Society  hold 
private  exhibition  in  a  small  room  to  be  rented  for  two  weeks  about  the  time  of  the  March  meeting,  and 
have  models  exhibited,  if  possible. 

January  14,  1902.    Third  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones  and  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  Manning,  and 
Vaux. 

The  invitation  of  the  Municipal  Art  Society  to  take  part  in  their  coming  exhibition  during  the  end  of 
January  in  the  National  Arts  Club  House  was  declined  with  thanks  on  account  of  lack  of  time  to  prepare 
exhibits. 

Voted:  That  the  Secretary  prepare  a  draft  of  questions  to  be  asked  those  applying  for  membership, 
and  that  the  applicants  for  Junior  membership  be  required  to  name  some  work  of  construction  on  which 
they  have  been  engaged. 

January  13,  1903.  The  fourth  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Messrs.  Parsons,  Barrett,  Lowrie,  Vaux,  Manning,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  and 
Pentecost. 

During  the  evening  the  following  subjects  were  discussed: 

(1)  The  actual  benefit  to  artistic  interests  resulting  from  the  American  Park  and  Outdoor  Art 
Association. 

(2)  A  formal  invitation  from  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Architectural  League  of  America  to 
the  A.  S.  L.  A.  to  join  said  society. 

(3)  The  ideal  relation  between  Architecture  and  Landscape  Architecture. 

March  5,  1903.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Parsons,  Barrett,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Lowrie,  and  Pentecost,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Fleming, 
Negus,  and  J.  Woodward  Manning,  Juniors. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  as  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  a  Schedule  of  Charges  and  Practice,  submitted 
his  report. 

Voted:   That  the  report  be  printed  and  circulated  among  the  Fellows  for  consideration. 

Mr.  Barrett  introduced  Mr.  Lamb,  President  of  the  Architectural  League  of  America.  Mr.  Lamb,  on 
behalf  of  his  society,  extended  a  formal  invitation  to  the  A.  S.  L.  A.  to  join  the  Architectural  League  of 
America.  It  was  decided  that  the  subject  was  of  such  importance  that  all  the  Fellows  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A. 
should  have  an  opportunity  of  discussing  the  question,  so  no  formal  action  was  taken. 

December  5,  1903.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Messrs.  Barrett,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Langton,  Parsons,  and  Vaux. 

The  offer  of  the  American  Institute  of  Architects  to  exchange  publications  was  accepted,  and  the 
Secretary  instructed  to  so  notify  the  Institute. 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  21 

January  12,  1904.     Fifth  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National   Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Barrett,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Lowrie,  Manning,  Langton,  and  Vaux,  and,  at  the 
dinner,  Mr.  Montgomery  Schuyler,  of  the  "New  York  Times,"  guest  of  the  Society. 

The  Committee  on  the  Memorial  Tablet  to  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux  reported  prog- 
ress, and  presented  a  design  which,  with  slight  modifications,  was  approved  and  the  question  of  site  left  open. 

Proofs  of  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Professional  Practice  were  submitted.  The  report  was  not 
to  be  made  public,  but  was  for  the  information  of  members,  and  was  to  be  sent  to  them  for  revision  and 
correction. 

The  invitation  from  the  Architectural  League  of  New  York  to  take  part  in  their  coming  exhibition  was 
discussed,  and  it  was  decided  that  the  Society  would  not  act,  but  that  members  might  exhibit  as  individuals. 

Voted:  That  an  Exhibition  Committee  of  four  be  appointed  to  report  on  the  time  and  place  for 
holding  an  exhibition  to  be  open  to  members  of  the  Society,  and  others  on  invitation. 

February  9,  1904.     Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  National  Arts  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Greenleaf,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows; 
Messrs.  Holton,  Hoth,  Lay,  and  J.  W.  Manning,  Juniors. 

As  the  Committee  on  Exhibition  (Barrett,  Langton,  Parsons,  and  Vaux)  asked  for  discussion  on  a 
place  for  holding  same,  the  National  Arts  Club  galleries  were  selected.  The  date  was  left  open  on  account 
of  lack  of  time  for  preparation  of  an  exhibition  this  spring. 

Voted:   That  the  minutes  of  the  meetings  of  the  past  five  years  be  printed. 

January  17,  1905.    Sixth  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Hotel  Astor,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones  and  Messrs.  Barrett,  Greenleaf,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr., 
J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pentecost,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Dawson,  Fleming,  Hoth,  Lay,  Pilat,  Scher- 
merhorn,  Vitale,  Juniors;  and  Mr.  W.  H.  Merrill,  editor  "New  York  World,"  guest. 

The  Committee  on  a  Memorial  Tablet  to  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux  asked  to  be  dis- 
charged, as  they  found  the  idea  not  agreeable  to  the  families  of  the  deceased.    Their  request  was  granted. 

Mr.  Langton  brought  up  for  discussion  the  subject  of  a  medal  to  be  offered  for  the  best  executed 
design,  said  design  to  have  been  completed  within  the  preceding  five  years,  and  the  matter  was  considered 
at  some  length.  This  medal  would  be  given  with  the  other  medals  under  the  auspices  of  the  Architectural 
League  of  New  York.    No  vote  taken. 

February  17,  1905.    Meeting  at  the  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Greenleaf,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pentecost,  and  Vaux, 
Fellows;  Messrs.  Hoth  and  Vitale,  Juniors. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Langton,  that,  as  there  seems  to  be  no  general  wish  for  an  exhibition  at  this 
time,  the  Committee  on  Exhibition  be  discharged. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Leavitt,  that  the  Executive  Committee  arrange  for  a  short  paper  to  be  pre- 
pared one  month  before  each  meeting,  and  copies  to  be  sent  to  all  members  for  discussion  at  said  meeting. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Langton,  that  the  subject  of  proposed  medal  be  referred  to  the  Executive 
Committee  for  formulation. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Vaux,  that  in  future  all  motions  made  at  a  meeting  of  the  Society  shall 
be  submitted  in  writing  to  the  presiding  officer  and  to  the  Secretary  before  the  motion  is  put  to  vote. 

It  being  reported  that  a  movement  had  been  started  to  have  Congress  appropriate  a  sum  of  money 
to  build  a  monument  in  memory  of  Major  L'Enfant,  who  made  the  plans  on  which  the  cities  of  Washing- 
ton and  Buffalo  were  laid  out,  it  was  voted,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Langton,  that  letters  be  sent  to  all 
Congressmen  from  New  York  City  urging  the  desirability  of  such  a  monument,  and  advocating  the  early 
favorable  action  of  Congress  on  the  matter. 

Voted:  On  motion  of  Mr.  Leavitt,  that  Article  IV  of  the  By-Laws  be  amended  by  reducing  the  dues  of 
Associate  Members  from  $io  to  $5.    Motion  afterwards  sent  to  members  in  writing  to  be  voted  on. 

March  14,  1905.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  and  Parsons,  Fellows;  Messrs. 
Hoth,  Schermerhorn,  and  Vitale,  Juniors. 

A  paper,  "Large  Tree  Planting,"  by  Mr.  James  L.  Greenleaf,  was  read  and  followed  by  discussion. 
(See  page  29.) 


22  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

April  18,  1905.    Meeting  at  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Vitale,  Gallagher,  Hoth,  Dawson, 
and  Holton,  Juniors. 

A  paper,  "Italian  Gardens,"  by  Ferruccio  Vitale,  was  read  (see  page  37),  followed  by  discussion. 

July  7,  8,  and  9,  1905.    Summer  meeting,  with  headquarters  at  Somerset  Hotel,  Boston,  Mass. 

Present:  Messrs.  Greenleaf,  Kennard,  Langton,  Lowrie,  Manning,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  J.  C.  Olmsted, 
Simonds,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Dawson,  Gallagher,  Hoth,  Hubbard,  Lay,  Mische,  Negus,  Pilat, 
Shurtleff,  and  White,  Juniors.  Guests,  Mr.  Sylvester  Baxter,  Mr.  William  Duncan,  Secretary  of 
"The  American  Florist,"  Mr.  Guy  Lowell,  Mr.  G.  A.  Parker,  Superintendent  of  Hartford  Parks, 
Mr.  Charles  Mulford  Robinson,  of  Rochester,  Mr.  Robeson  Sargent,  Mr.  William  J.  Stewart,  Mr. 
Herbert  Wise. 

Friday,  July  7.  Excursions  through  the  largest  boulevards  and  parkways  of  Boston,  the  Riverside 
Recreation  Club  and  Boston  Athletic  Club-grounds,  Robinson  Hall,  Harvard  University  (Courses  in  Archi- 
tecture and  Landscape  Architecture),  new  Harvard  Stadium.  Private  Place  excursion  through  the  grounds 
of  Mrs.  John  L.  Gardner  and  Brookline,  the  richest  town  in  proportion  to  population  in  the  country  (assessor's 
valuation,  1904,  $88,000,000;  population,  22,000),  especially  Holmlea  (Prof.  C.  S.  Sargent),  Weld  and 
Faulkner  Farms.  Visit  to  the  Olmsted  office.  Dinner  at  the  hotel  and  lecture  in  the  evening  by  Mr.  John 
C.  Olmsted  on  "The  Boston  Park  System."    (See  page  42.) 

Saturday,  July  8.  Excursion  through  the  Boston  Park  System  and  part  of  the  Metropolitan  System. 
Dinner  at  the  hotel,  and  lecture  in  the  evening  by  Prof.  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  on  "The  Metropolitan  Park 
System."    (See  page  56.) 

Sunday,  July  9.  Excursion  through  the  Mystic  River  Reservation,  Fellsway  East,  Revere  Beach 
Parkway  to  Revere  Beach  Reservation.  Visits  to  Wood  Island  Park,  North  End  Park,  and  Charlesbank, 
much-used  parks  in  the  poorest  section  of  the  city,  the  Common,  and  Public  Gardens. 

November  14,  1905.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York. 

Present:  Miss  Bullard,  Messrs.  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Kennard,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Par- 
sons, Pentecost,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Holton,  Hoth,  Lay,  and  Vitale,  Juniors.  Also  guests  of  Miss 
Bullard  and  Mr.  Langton. 

Followed  by  paper  on  "A  Visit  to  Paris,"  by  Harold  A.  Caparn,  and  subsequent  discussion.  (See 
page  56.) 

December  12,  1905.    Meeting  and  dinner  held  at  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Caparn,  Kennard,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Mr. 
Hoth,  Junior. 

A  paper,  "Cost  of  Landscape  Development,"  by  Charles  W.  Leavitt,  Jr.  (see  page  69),  was  read, 
followed  by  discussion. 

January  9,  1906.    Seventh  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Hotel  St.  Denis,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Greenleaf,  Langton,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Pentecost,  and 
Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Dawson,  Fleming,  Holton,  Hoth,  Hubbard,  Lay,  Nolen,  Vitale,  White,  and 
Weinrichter,  Juniors. 

Report  of  Committee  on  Schedule  of  Charges  and  Practice  and  subsequent  discussion  omitted.  This 
report  was  intended  for  private  circulation  among  members. 

February  6,  1906.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Langton,  Lowrie,  Olmsted,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs. 
Hoth  and  Weinrichter,  Juniors. 

The  editing  of  the  minutes  was  advocated  by  Messrs.  Greenleaf  and  Langton  because  of  the  discursive 
and  slipshod  character  of  the  speeches  as  recorded  by  the  stenographer. 

A  discussion  was  begun  by  Mr.  Parsons  on  the  Society  sending  an  exhibit  to  the  Jamestown  Exposition. 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  23 

The  general  sentiment  of  the  meeting  seemed  to  be  that  care  ought  to  be  taken  to  preserve  the  identity 
of  the  exhibit,  if  any  should  be  sent,  and  there  was  some  doubt  whether,  at  the  present  stage,  the  Society 
ought  to  exhibit  at  all.    The  question  was  referred  to  the  Executive  Committee. 

Then  followed  a  paper,  "Description  of  a  Design  for  West  Side  Park,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,"  by  Charles 
N.  Lowrie  and  Daniel  W.  Langton.    (See  page  72.) 

March  6,  1906.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Hotel  Lafayette,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  Olmsted,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Lay, 
Nolen,  and  Pilat,  Juniors.   Also  Mr.  Joseph  Gatringer,  guest  of  Mr.  Parsons. 

A  paper,  "Small  City  Parks,"  by  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.  (see  page  75),  was  read. 

November  13,  1906.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Kennard,  Langton,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pentecost, 
and  Vaux,  Fellows;  Miss  Coffin,  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Gallagher,  Gay,  Holton,  Hoth,  Nolen,  Pilat, 
Vitale,  and  Weinrichter,  Juniors. 

A  letter  was  read  from  Mr.  Charles  W.  Leavitt,  Jr.,  recommending  that  a  resolution  of  sympathy 
on  the  death  of  Mr.  Rudolph  Ulrich  be  passed  by  the  Society,  and  a  copy  sent  to  the  widow.  Mr.  Langton 
opposed  the  resolution  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  officious  to  pass  such  a  resolution  on  a  man  who  was 
not  a  member  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A.,  nor  a  conspicuously  notable  member  of  the  profession. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted  asked  whether  there  was  any  precedent  for  such  action  with  regard  to  a  non- 
member,  and  pointed  out  the  risk  of  establishing  one. 

Mr.  Vaux  replied  that  such  a  resolution  had  been  passed  on  the  death  of  Mr.  Samuel  Parsons. 

Mr.  Langton  pointed  out  that  this  was  proper,  as  Mr.  Parsons  was  the  foremost  of  that  generation 
who  had  contributed  to  our  present  stock  of  material,  but  was  not  a  landscape  architect. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Olmsted,  a  committee  of  three,  Mr.  Olmsted,  Mr.  Langton,  and  Mr.  Parsons,  was 
appointed  to  consider  the  question. 

An  invitation  to  participate  in  the  Alaska-Yukon  and  Pacific  Exposition  in  1909  was  read. 

Then  followed  a  paper,  "Historical  Notes,"  by  Downing  Vaux  (see  page  81)  and  discussion. 

Mr.  Langton  advised  that  Mr.  Nolen's  suggestion  of  reprints  of  classics  in  landscape  architecture, 
under  the  auspices  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A.,  be  accepted  with  acclaim,  as  many  of  the  books  were  practically 
unobtainable,  and  few  public  libraries  had  them.  It  would  give  a  reply  to  questions  about  the  use  of  the 
A.  S.  L.  A.,  which  had  been  in  existence  several  years  without  accomplishing  anything. 

It  was  generally  agreed  that  the  Fellows  use  personal  endeavor  to  get  the  books  placed  in  libraries  of 
all  kinds. 

Mr.  Parsons  said  that  there  were  unknown  books  of  value  in  French  and  German  which  could  be 
translated. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Langton,  Mr.  Nolen  was  appointed  a  committee  of  one  to  act  for  the  Society  in 
editing  or  passing  on  the  editing  of  any  book  to  be  published  in  this  way. 

Mr.  Parsons  suggested  that  an  official  seal  be  obtained,  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  Langton  it  was  agreed 
that  the  Executive  Committee  report  at  the  next  annual  meeting  on  some  form  of  seal  to  be  used  by  the 
A.  S.  L.  A.  in  its  publications. 

December  11,  1906.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Kennard,  Langton,  Lowrie,  Manning,  Parsons,  and 
Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Gay,  Hoth,  Lay,  Nichols,  Pilat,  Schermerhorn,  and  Weinrichter, 
Juniors. 

An  amendment  to  the  constitution  was  discussed,  in  which  Mr.  Langton,  as  proposer,  explained  that 
his  object  was  to  enable  Juniors  to  qualify  for  Fellows  by  allowing  three  of  their  years  of  experience 
as  Juniors  in  the  offices  of  Fellows  to  count  as  two  of  independent  practice.  In  this  way  they  would  become 
Fellows  after  three  years  of  independent  practice  instead  of  five. 

As  the  meeting  was  unable,  under  the  constitution,  to  pass  upon  the  amendment,  it  was  returned 
to  Mr.  Langton,  at  his  request,  for  revision. 

The  following  notice  and  letters  were  then  presented: 


24  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE   AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

"The  Octagon,  Washington,  D.  C. 
"The  American  Institute  of  Architects,  founded  in  the  year  1857,  will  commemorate  the  Fiftieth 
Anniversary  of  this  date,  in  the  City  of  Washington,  on  the  eighth  of  January,  1907,  and  will  esteem  it  an 
honor  if  the  American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects  can  be  represented  on  this  occasion." 
Also  a  letter  from  Mr.  Seeler: 

"Philadelphia,  December  8,  1906. 
"American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects, 
"New  York  City,  N.  Y. 
"Sirs: — I  beg  to  supplement  the  invitation  of  the  American  Institute  of  Architects,  that  you  be 
represented  on  the  occasion  of  the  exercises  commemorative  of  the  Fiftieth  Anniversary  of  the  Foundation 
of  the  Institute,  by  enclosing  a  preliminary  program  of  the  Institute  convention. 

"The  Secretary  of  the  Institute  would  be  pleased  to  know  the  name  and  address  of  your  representative, 
should  you  decide  to  have  one  present,  in  order  that  an  invitation  to  the  Annual  Banquet  may  be  forwarded 
him.  "Yours  very  truly,  Edgar  V.  Seeler." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Langton,  it  was  decided  that  the  invitation  of  the  A.  I.  A.  be  accepted,  and  a 
representative  sent. 

Part  of  a  letter  from  Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Jr.,  to  the  Secretary,  suggesting  that  a  candidate  for 
membership  be  proposed  by  two  Fellows  instead  of  applying  for  admission,  on  the  ground  that  it  would  be  a 
more  dignified  and  satisfactory  attitude  for  the  Society  to  adopt. 

In  the  discussion  which  followed,  Mr.  Greenleaf  and  Mr.  Kennard  spoke  in  favor  of  Mr.  Olmsted's 
view,  and  Mr.  Langton  opposed  it  on  the  ground  that  in  becoming  a  member  the  man  was  honored — not  the 
Society.  Mr.  Pilat  made  the  point  that  proposals  for  membership  would  be  appropriate  in  a  social  club, 
but  not  in  a  Society  such  as  the  A.  S.  L.  A.   The  matter  was  laid  on  the  table. 

A  paper,  "The  Jamestown  Exposition,"  by  Warren  H.  Manning  (see  page  83),  was  read. 

January  8,  1907.    Ninth  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Kennard,  Lowrie,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows; 
Miss  Coffin,  Messrs.  Brinkerhoff,  Dawson,  Dow,  Fleming,  Gatringer,  Gay,  Hoth,  Morell,  Nichols,  Nolen, 
Saltus,  Townsend,  Underhill,  and  Vitale,  Juniors.    Guests,  Mr.  C.  W.  Barry,  Mr.  P.  R.  Jones. 

Mr.  Nolen  spoke  of  the  suggestion  of  the  publishers,  Houghton,  Mifflin  Company,  for  the  use  of  a 
seal  on  the  cover  of  the  proposed  reprints  of  classics  in  landscape  architecture,  and  within  the  book  an 
appropriate  inscription.    After  discussion,  the  following  inscription  was  approved: 

"This  is  the  first  volume  of  a  series  of  Classics  in  Landscape  Architecture  which  has  been  undertaken  at 
the  suggestion  and  with  the  cooperation  of  the  American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects." 

Mr.  C.  W.  Barry,  of  Rochester,  made  a  speech  on  the  "Relations  of  the  Horticulturist  and  the 
Landscape  Architect,"  which  he  afterward  revised.    (See  page  89.) 

February  5,  1907.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Simonds,  and  Vaux,  Fellows; 
Messrs.  Gay,  Lay,  Morell,  Nolen,  and  Pilat,  Juniors. 

In  a  discussion  on  the  reprint  of  Repton,  Mr.  Nolen  and  Miss  Jones  referred  to  the  obsolete  character 
of  many  of  the  Repton  illustrations.  Mr.  Nolen  said  the  new  Repton  would  contain  photographs  of  Repton's 
work  done  a  hundred  years  ago. 

Miss  Jones  advised  the  translation  and  republishing  of  Dezalliers  d'Agenville's  "Theorie  et  Pratique 
de  Jardinage"  as  an  admirable  book,  and  very  difficult  to  get. 

Then  followed  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Seal: 

"As  the  result  of  a  considerable  amount  of  insistence  on  the  part  of  the  committee,  a  few  suggestions 
for  the  Seal  of  the  Society,  have  been  received.  These  ideas  may  be  roughly  divided  into  two  classes,  one 
pictorial,  the  other  conventional. 

"In  the  first  crude  stage  the  pictorial  may  seem  the  most  attractive.  However,  as  the  problem  is 
more  carefully  considered  with  regard  to  its  limitations,  the  pictorial  element  seems  less  adapted  to  the 
purpose.  These  limitations  are  many;  the  space  is  necessarily  small,  therefore  the  design  must  be  repre- 
sented in  comparatively  few  lines,  because  minute  lines  or  spaces  cannot  be  successfully  reproduced  in 
printing. 


f«0P£RTT  L9MAKY 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  25 

"This  disposes  of  the  possibility  of  a  complicated  design,  as  a  collection  of  objects  purporting  to  repre- 
sent the  different  sides  of  the  profession  would  make  too  large  and  confused  a  design  to  carry  out  artisti- 
cally. Also  emblems  or  attributes  of  any  reasonable  number  must  necessarily  be  only  partially  expressive 
and  therefore  would  emphasize  phases  of  the  profession. 

"One  member  might  criticize  a  certain  emblem  or  design  as  accentuating  too  strongly  only  the  formal 
side  of  our  profession,  and  another  would  find  certain  objects  as  representing  only  the  uncontrollable  aspects 
of  Nature. 

"Pictorial  representation  requires  the  treatment  of  objects  in  different  planes.  Messrs.  St.  Gaudens 
and  French  object  to  this  treatment  as  impossible  of  artistic  execution  and  inappropriate  to  the  design, 
object,  and  purpose  of  a  medal  or  seal.  The  committee,  therefore,  concludes  that  a  conventional  treatment 
is  more  likely  to  be  successful,  not  only  in  execution,  but  by  avoiding  invidious  emphasis  upon  necessarily 
partial  aspects  of  the  profession. 

"We  are  proceeding  upon  these  lines,  and  will  report  and  submit  an  actual  design  at  the  earliest 
possible  moment.  Respectfully  submitted, 

[Signed]         Beatrix  Jones 

Frederick  Law  Olmsted,  Jr. 
John  Nolen." 

Then  followed  a  talk  on  "Western  Notes"  by  Mr.  Ossian  C.  Simonds.  (See  synopsis  of  talk  on 
page  90.) 

This  was  followed  by  a  discussion  of  photographs  brought  by  Mr.  Simonds. 

March  5,  1907.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  and 
Vaux,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Dawson,  Gay,  Morell,  Pilat,  Saltus,  Schermerhorn,  Underhill,  and  Vitale,  Juniors. 

Discussion  on  the  admission  of  Associate  Members,  a  question  already  considered  by  the  Executive 
Committee. 

Mr.  Caparn  spoke  in  favor  of  making  the  conditions  of  admission  as  inclusive  as  possible,  as  our  art 
and  ourselves  would  profit  by  the  contact  with  interested  and  sympathetic  people,  and  by  the  publicity 
and  financial  aid  they  would  bring.  He  cited  the  National  Sculpture  Society  as  an  instance  of  the  benefits 
to  be  gained  from  lay  members. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted  said  that  this  is  a  technical  organization,  and  the  profit  of  meetings  lies  in  their 
restriction  to  technical  subjects.  The  admission  of  Associate  Members,  as  a  legal  means  of  adding  occasional 
members  otherwise  ineligible,  might  be  of  distinct  advantage  to  the  Society;  but  he  thought  that  the 
attitude  of  the  American  Institute  of  Architects,  or  of  the  American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  should  be 
more  our  aim.    Miss  Jones  opposed  and  Mr.  Leavitt  supported  the  admission  of  lay  members. 

In  reply  to  a  question  by  Mr.  Leavitt,  it  was  explained  that  the  stenographer  was  given  up  for  reasons 
of  economy. 

The  Committee  on  Seal  reported  that  many  schemes  had  been  tried,  and  three  general  classes  consid- 
ered:   (i)  Decorated  inscription.    (2)  Allegorical  figure.    (3)  Conventional  decorative  design  with  emblems. 

They  exhibited  various  experimental  designs  of  more  or  less  merit,  of  which,  perhaps,  the  best  was  an 
ingenious  conventionalization  of  the  reverse  curve. 

It  had  been  found  that  material  objects,  such  as  trees,  vegetation,  and  construction,  were  difficult  to 
conventionalize  without  preponderance  of  the  idea  of  formal  work. 

Mr.  Leavitt  suggested  a  profile  of  a  master  of  the  art,  a  view  of  a  well-known  and  typical  garden 
such  as  the  Villa  d'Este,  the  Garden  of  Eden,  the  Creation  of  the  World,  or  Time,  as  fit  subjects  for  the 
seal. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted  moved  that  it  is  the  sense  of  this  meeting  that  the  Executive  Committee  adopt  a 
Seal  for  the  Society  after  the  Committee  on  Seal  shall  have  secured  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  the  Fellows 
to  a  design,  and  that  the  expense  of  having  a  satisfactory  design  prepared  be  met  by  the  Society,  if  not  in 
excess  of  $250.    Motion  carried. 

November  12,  1907.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pray,  and  Vaux, 
Fellows;  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Gay,  Lay,  and  Underhill,  Juniors. 

Mr.  Lowrie,  on  behalf  of  the  Committee  on  Invitation  from  American  Institute  of  Architects,  reported 


26  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

that  conferences  had  been  held  with  architects  who  asked  that  a  Special  Committee  be  appointed  to  confer 
with  a  committee  from  the  American  Institute  of  Architects. 

A  paper,  "A  Great  Water  Park  in  Jamaica  Bay,  New  York,"  by  Mr.  Harold  A.  Caparn  (see  page  92), 
was  read. 

December  10,  1907.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 
Present:    Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Leavitt,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  and  Vaux,  Fellows; 
Miss  Coffin,  Messrs.  Chamberlin,  Gay,  Gallagher,  Lay,  Morell,  and  Nolen,  Juniors. 

REPORT   OF    COMMITTEE    ON    REPRINTS     OF   WORK   ON    LANDSCAPE    ARCHITECTURE 

The  actual  appearance  in  tangible  form  of  a  1907  "Repton"  invites  a  brief  look  backward  to  the  origin 
of  this  edition,  and  a  consideration  of  the  steps  leading  to  its  publication. 

The  suggestion  originated  with  Mr.  Parsons  in  the  spring  of  1906,  at  a  meeting  of  the  Society,  to 
which  he  brought  a  copy  of  a  volume  describing  the  work  of  Puckler  Von  Muskau.  The  question  arose  in 
an  informal  discussion  after  the  meeting:  Why  shouldn't  the  Society  try  to  bring  about  the  re-publication 
of  some  of  these  old  classics? 

As  a  result  of  this  suggestion,  I  presented  a  proposal  to  Messrs.  Houghton  Mifflin  Company  to  reprint 
several  of  the  best  of  the  old  garden  books  as  a  test  of  the  public  demand,  and  that,  if  these  proved  successful, 
to  continue  the  series.  It  was  proposed,  as  a  start,  to  print  Whately,  Repton,  and  Puckler  Von  Muskau, 
and  to  follow  them  with  some  others  to  be  agreed  upon  later,  including,  perhaps,  the  Essays  of  Mason, 
Horace  Walpole,  Scott,  Pope,  and  Addison,  and  a  translation  of  Girardin's  work.  It  was  believed  that 
such  volumes  would  make  an  interesting  and,  in  many  ways,  an  authoritative  library  on  landscape 
architecture. 

After  carrying  on  negotiations  for  some  time,  Houghton  Mifflin  Company  agreed  to  issue  Repton 
and  Whately,  taking  all  the  financial  responsibility  themselves,  except  that  the  Society  was  to  agree  to 
back  the  enterprise  to  the  extent  of  $400  worth  of  books  on  each  volume  issued.  On  this  basis  the  preparation 
of  the  Repton  was  definitely  taken  up. 

It  was  decided  to  go  back  of  the  Loudon  edition  of  Repton,  which  was  issued  many  years  after 
Repton's  death,  to  the  original  edition.  A  careful  examination  of  all  of  Repton's  works  showed  that  his 
best  books  were  "Sketches  and  Hints,"  issued  in  1795,  when  he  was  forty-three  years  old,  and  "Theory 
and  Practice,"  issued  in  1803,  when  he  was  fifty-one.  The  only  other  volume  of  importance  was  that 
entitled  "Fragments,"  issued  in  1816,  and  believed  to  be  largely  the  work  of  Repton's  son.  The  illustrations 
in  the  new  volume  are  all  reproduced  from  the  original  editions  and,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  are  very 
satisfactory.  Some  compromises  had  to  be  made  on  account  of  the  cost,  the  desire  of  the  Society 
and  the  publishers  both  being  to  keep  the  price  of  the  book  down  to  $3,  so  that  it  might  have  a  wider 
circulation. 

In  editing  the  book  the  main  idea  was  to  make  as  few  changes  as  possible  and,  with  the  exception  of 
the  elimination  of  some  material  clearly  without  interest  or  value  at  the  present  day,  and  the  transference 
of  the  notes  to  the  end  of  the  book,  there  are  few  changes  of  any  importance.  The  controlling  principle 
was  to  retain  the  real  flavor  and  integrity  of  the  original  work,  so  that  even  Repton  himself,  resting  in  the 
old  churchyard  at  Aylsham  in  Norfolkshire,  amid  sweet-smelling  roses  and  boxwood  borders,  would  have 
no  inclination  to  rise  in  his  grave,  or,  if  he  did,  it  would  simply  be  to  give  approval  to  our  action. 

Importance  now  attaches  to  the  sale  of  the  book:  The  publishers  are  giving  it  wide  and  appropriate 
advertisement,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  result  for  them  will  be  such  that  they  will  be  inclined,  with  less 
hesitation,  to  take  up  the  other  volumes.  The  Society  has  its  guarantee  to  meet,  and  has  already  made 
substantial  progress  toward  that  end.  Although  the  canvass  has  been  on  for  less  than  two  weeks  there 
are  already  one  hundred  volumes  subscribed  for,  which  is  more  than  half  of  the  number  for  which  we  are 
responsible.  The  book  is  to  be  sold  at  $3  net,  and  the  Society  will  deliver  it  postpaid  at  that  price,  so  that 
it  can  be  bought  as  cheap  through  the  Society  as  at  a  bookstore.  Moreover,  the  publishers  have  agreed 
to  allow  the  Society  a  discount  of  30  per  cent  on  all  volumes  sold  by  it.  This  means  that,  if  the  Society 
should  sell  two  hundred  copies,  it  would  have  a  profit  of  $180  less  only  the  cost  of  handling  and  postage- 
It  is  hoped  that  the  Society  will  be  able  to  pass  its  guarantee  and  dispose  of  an  even  larger  number.  A 
special  circular  has  been  prepared  with  an  order-blank  on  the  Society,  and  these  are  available  for 
the  members'  use. 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  27 

It  would  seem  that  the  work  and  trouble  and  responsibility  involved  in  the  publication  of  this  series 
is  justified  on  several  grounds: 

(1)  It  is  an  honor  to  Repton  and  ourselves;  it  is  an  indication  to  the  general  public  that  the  Society 
is  a  constructive  influence  collectively. 

(2)  If  this  and  the  other  books  succeed  even  measurably,  it  will  be  a  vindication  of  the  good  taste  of 
the  people. 

(3)  Above  all,  the  re-issue  of  such  works  as  Repton  and  Whately  will  help  to  demonstrate  to  a  larger 
public  that  the  art  to  which  we  are  dedicated  is  a  fine  one,  founded  upon  great  principles  which,  in  the 
past,  have  had  wide  application  and  which,  in  the  future,  if  we  are  to  do  great  and  permanent  things,  must 
increasingly  prevail.  Respectfully  submitted, 

(Signed)     John  Nolen. 

Mr.  Leavitt  said  that  the  American  Institute  of  Architecture  had  recently  added  a  schedule  of  not  less 
than  10  per  cent  for  works  of  landscape  architecture. 

He  spoke  of  the  difficulties  of  fixing  charges,  as  the  varied  character  of  our  work  precludes  a  charge 
always  based  on  cost  of  execution;  also  of  the  difficulties  of  the  landscape  architect's  position  when  called 
in  to  correct  mistakes  of  the  architect,  which  he  was  compelled  to  point  out.  He  wished  that  means  could 
be  found  by  which  such  friction  could  be  avoided. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted  suggested  a  committee  to  confer  tentatively  with  the  Institute,  and  find  out  why 
they  adopted  the  new  schedule  for  the  work  of  landscape  architects.  He  pointed  out  that  it  is  not  possible 
for  us  to  take  the  attitude  of  trades-unions.  He  thought  it  unimportant  whether  a  man  be  called  architect 
or  landscape  architect,  so  long  as  he  does  the  work  well.  There  is  no  line  of  cleavage  between  them,  and 
the  time  might  come  when  a  landscape  architect  might,  as  some  architects  do  now,  for  instance,  make  a 
specialty  of  designing  both  house  and  grounds  in  small  country  and  suburban  places. 

Then  followed  a  paper,  "Cost  of  Landscape  Development,"  by  Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted.    (See  page  96.) 

January  14,  1908.    Tenth  annual  meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Lowrie,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  Parsons,  Pentecost,  and 
Vaux,  Fellows;  Miss  Coffin,  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Chamberlin,  Dow,  Gatringer,  Lay,  Schermerhorn, 
Underhill,  and  Vitale,  Juniors.   Guest,  Mr.  C.  Howard  Walker. 

Report  of  Treasurer. — Total  expenses  for  1907,  $290.24;  Balance  on  hand,  $636.51.  The  Treasurer 
stated  that  the  greater  part  of  this  balance  of  $636.51  was  at  present  tied  up  in  the  Knickerbocker  Trust 
Company,  now  insolvent,  which  had  been  the  depository  of  the  A.  S.  L.  A.  since  its  organization,  and  that 
a  new  account  had  been  opened  at  the  Second  National  Bank. 

The  Secretary  reported  that  he  had  received  $534.00  for  178  copies  of  the  new  edition  of  Repton, 
on  which  there  was  a  profit  of  $43.08.  There  were,  besides,  thirty  books  sold  and  unsold,  not  yet  paid  for, 
to  the  value  of  $90. 

Then  followed  a  speech,  "The  Relations  of  the  Architect  and  the  Landscape  Architect,"  by  Mr. 
C.  Howard  Walker,  of  Boston.    (See  page  103.) 

February  11,  1908.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Lowrie,  Parsons,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  and  Vaux, 
Fellows;  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Gatringer,  Gay,  Hoth,  Lay  and  Underhill,  Juniors.  Guest,  Mr.  C.  Bowyer 
Vaux. 

A  paper,  "Interesting  Facts  in  Regard  to  the  Inception  and  Development  of  Central  Park,"  by  Samuel 
Parsons,  Jr.,  City  Landscape  Architect  of  New  York  (see  page  105),  was  read,  accompanied  by  numerous 
photographs  and  plans  explained  by  Mr.  Gatringer. 

March  10,  1908.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Hotel  Brunswick,  Boston,  Mass. 

Present:  Messrs.  Kennard,  Manning,  F.  L.  Olmsted,  J.  C.  Olmsted,  Pray,  Shurtleff,  and  Vaux, 
Fellows;  Messrs.  Brinckerhoff,  Dawson,  Gallagher,  Hubbard,  Kellaway,  Lay,  Movius,  Negus,  and  Nolen, 
Juniors.   Guest,  Mr.  T.  M.  Clark. 

Mr.  Shurtleff  spoke  on  schemes  for  Municipal  Improvements  in  Boston,  and  the  way  in  which  these 
schemes  would  be  regarded  by  German  experts. 

The  pamphlet  published  by  a  committee  of  the  Boston  Society  of  Architects  made  the  first  move 
for  improvement,  a  move  which  has  resulted  in  the  appointment  of  a  Commission  by  the  Mayor.    This 


28  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

Committee  did  not  endorse  any  of  the  schemes,  but  simply  gave  them  publicity  in  the  hope  of  provoking 
discussion. 

Mr.  Shurtleff's  remarks  were  essentially  as  given  on  page  m,  in  which  the  notes  refer  to  lantern-slides 
reproduced  elsewhere. 

Mr.  H.  J.  Clark  was  then  introduced,  and  spoke  of  his  scheme  for  new  docks  in  Boston.  He  said  there 
was  a  certain  prospect  of  having  such  things  to  design. 

"Two  years  ago  Hill  said  that  the  United  States  had  reached  its  capacity  for  exporting.  The 
railroads  have  felt  this,  and  we  hear  of  congestion  in  freight  yards,  and  schemes  for  larger  docks  in  New 
York  have  been  proposed,  as  in  Jamaica  Bay,  where  it  is  said  every  trunk-line  railroad  has  promised  to 
build  tunnels  and  connections. 

"The  railroads  feel  the  necessity  of  better  water  transportation. 

"The  railroads  should  come  to  the  steamer  to  deliver  goods  instead  of  lightering  or  carting.  But  it 
is  difficult  to  bring  the  railroads  to  the  steamers. 

"Hamburg  is  three  hundred  miles  farther  from  the  sea  than  Antwerp,  its  rival,  where  there  are  four 
miles  of  piers  with  parallel  warehouse.  There  is  a  track  next  to  the  water,  then  the  warehouse,  then  four 
more  tracks.   There  is  great  trouble  in  getting  across  the  tracks. 

"At  Hamburg  perpendicular,  or  finger-piers,  one  kilo  long,  were  built  with  tracks  and  warehouses  on 
the  piers.  This  made  it  easier  to  get  the  goods  on  the  steamers,  and  Hamburg  is  now  the  first  port  in  the 
world. 

"Antwerp  is  now  trying  the  same  plan  with  nine  piers  1,200  meters  long. 

"Where  shall  we  put  such  piers  in  Boston?  At  South  Boston,  where  they  will  be  easily  reached  from 
the  President  Roads  and  where  they  can  be  a  mile  long,  which  is  necessary  for  our  freight  trains.  The 
modern  steamer  is  1,000  feet  long.   The  Commercial  pier,  the  longest  on  the  coast,  is  1,200  feet. 

"Loading  is  best  done  at  Liverpool  where  the  steamer  unloads  into  a  shed,  moves  ahead  and  fills 
with  waiting  cargo.    It  takes  four  days  there,  and  ten  days  in  Boston." 

Mr.  Clark  then  discussed  various  types  of  cranes  for  loading. 

December  29,  1908.    Meeting  and  dinner  at  the  Transportation  Club,  New  York  City. 

Present:  Miss  Jones,  Messrs.  Caparn,  Greenleaf,  Lowrie,  Parsons,  and  Vitale,  Fellows;  Messrs.  Gay, 
Lay,  Morell  and  Nichols,  Juniors. 

The  Committee  on  Seal  reported  progress,  and  Miss  Jones  was  empowered  (on  motion  of  Mr.  Vitale) 
"to  consult  with  some  specialist  in  design  in  regard  to  the  character  of  the  seal,  and  the  cost  of  the  design," 
and  was  allowed  $100.00  for  this  purpose. 

Mr.  Nichols  showed  some  photographs  of  the  G.  B.  Post,  Jr.,  house  in  Bernardsville,  illustrating 
his  contention  that  a  formal  setting,  or  base,  is  necessary  for  a  large  house  set  on  a  hill-top,  just  as  a  statue 
must  have  a  pedestal. 

Mr.  Caparn  thought  there  were  cases  where  an  informal  or  naturalesque  setting  would  be  not  only 
preferable,  but  the  only  one  possible. 

Following  this  it  was  admitted  that  in  some  cases  the  landscape  and  setting  must  dominate,  as  in  the 
picturesque  castles  of  the  Rhine,  and  that  in  other  cases  the  landscape  must  be  subordinate  to  the  formality 
and  architectural  qualities  of  the  house. 


LARGE    TREE    PLANTING* 

By    JAMES    L.    GREENLEAF 
(Meeting  of  March   14.  1905) 

MY  desire  is  to  bring  out  the  opinions  of  others  on  the  subject  of  large  tree  planting. 
Some  of  these  I  fully  anticipate  will  be  in  opposition  to  all  large  tree  moving. 
When  a  client  some  time  ago  was  expressing  to  me  his  desire  to  have  results 
quickly,  I  remarked  to  him  that  it  required  a  young  landscape  architect  to  plan  for  planting 
large  trees.  The  older  men  knew  better  than  to  do  it.  I  think  there  is  a  great  deal  of 
truth  in  this,  because  it  does  not  stand  to  reason  that  a  growth  long  established  can  be 
violently  taken  from  its  environment  and  plunged  into  new  conditions  without  something 
of  a  shock.  We  know  how  hard  it  is  to  teach  an  old  dog  new  tricks,  and  if  a  tree  had  a 
voice  to  speak,  I  do  not  doubt  it  would  enter  even  louder  protests  against  being  interfered 
with.  Nevertheless,  conditions  and  not  theories  confront  us;  and  it  is  doubtless  the 
general  experience  that  numerous  cases  arise  where  the  inducements  to  use  large  trees 
for  immediate  effect  are  imperative. 

Assuming  that  work  of  this  character  must  be  done  more  or  less  frequently,  what 
are  the  best  methods  of  handling  it,  under  various  conditions?  We  all  know  that  it  is  possible 
successfully  to  move  large  trees,  although  success  will  not  invariably  follow  the  most 
earnest  efforts.  I  should  like  to  hear  from  anyone  who  has  had  experience  of  this  nature 
in  hotter  and  drier  climates  than  ours.  Is  large  tree  moving  feasible  in  Nebraska,  for 
example,  and  under  what  conditions? 

I  imagine  the  necessity  for  moving  big  trees  has  not  arisen  to  any  extent  on  the 
Pacific  coast,  but  has  any  work  of  that  nature  been  done  there? 

Can  any  one  tell  us  of  big  tree  moving  in  the  far  South?  And  how  about  handling 
palmetto  trees,  for  example? 

Returing  to  the  consideration  of  large  tree  moving,  as  we  meet  the  problem  in  this 
region,  I  presume  we  are  all  agreed  upon  the  value  of  root-pruning  a  year  or  two  previous 
to  moving,  by  digging  a  circular  trench  around  the  tree.  If  this  is  filled  back  with  good 
soil  the  tree  is  induced  to  throw  into  it  a  large  amount  of  fresh,  young,  fibrous  roots.  Of 
course,  the  more  fibrous  the  root-system,  the  greater  the  facility  with  which  the  tree  will 
take  hold  upon  its  new  conditions  after  planting.  But  I  have  known  cases  in  which  the 
root-pruning  did  not  work  to  any  material  advantage,  and  for  the  following  reason: 

Suppose  the  root-pruned  tree  is  to  be  moved  in  winter,  when  it  is  impracticable 
to  rake  out  and  preserve  the  lateral  fibers,  then  the  course  of  procedure  is  to  dig  the  ball 
larger  than  the  root-pruning  ball,  in  order  to  include  the  new  fiber,  but  this  practically 
results  in  the  breaking,  or  slumping  off,  of  the  sides  of  the  ball  formed  of  the  material 
into  which  the  new  fiber  has  grown.  As  the  sides  loosen  and  fall  off,  they  take  the  fibrous 
roots  with  them  and,  after  all,  the  ball  is  reduced  practically  to  the  dimensions  of  the 
root-pruning  ball.  Of  course,  so  far  as  the  tree  has  been  forced  into  throwing  out  fresh 
fiber  into  this  ball,  the  conditions  for  moving  it  have  been  improved.  I  have,  perhaps, 
sketched  an  extreme  situation  in  the  foregoing  remarks,  and  yet,  is  it  not  more  or  less 
the  case  whenever  one  tries  to  move  a  recently  root-pruned  tree  under  freezing  conditions? 
*Paper  sent  out  to  members  in  advance  of  the  meeting  of  March  14,  1905,  for  discussion  at  that  meeting. 

(29) 


3o  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

Of  course,  if  the  root-pruned  tree  is  moved  in  fall  or  spring,  and  the  dirt  is  raked  out  from 
among  the  fibers  on  the  sides  of  the  ball  to  whatever  extent  is  necessary  to  prevent  their 
being  broken  off,  then  these  projecting  fibrous  roots  may  be  of  very  considerable  value. 

These  thoughts  lead  naturally  to  the  discussion  of  the  relative  merits  of  moving 
with  a  solid  ball  of  earth,  and  the  opposite  course,  which  is  to  rake  out  pretty  much  all 
the  earth  and  preserve  all  the  roots.  The  latter  method  is  the  better  theory,  but  the  question 
is  whether  it  is  always  the  better  practice.  The  ideal,  as  proclaimed  by  a  planter  on 
Long  Island,  is  to  preserve  all  the  roots  to  their  uttermost  limit,  tying  them  up  carefully. 
Of  course,  by  this  means  the  weight  to  be  handled  is  greatly  reduced,  and  it  may  be  pos- 
sible to  transport  trees  that  would  otherwise  be  out  of  the  question,  except  with  special 
engineering  appliances.  Arriving  at  the  place  of  planting,  every  root  is  supposed  to  be 
carefully  spread  out  and  firmly  tamped  in  good  soil,  when  they  will  take  up  again  the 
operations  for  which  nature  intended  them.  It  is  for  such  reasons  that  I  have  stated  this 
to  be  the  more  perfect  theory  of  transplanting. 

The  other  method  may  be  defined  as  an  arbitrary  chopping  off  of  all  roots  outside 
of  a  certain  limit,  and  transporting  everything  within  that  circumference,  keeping  undis- 
turbed as  much  as  possible  all  contained  roots  and  soil.  Of  course,  it  is  a  great  advantage 
to  keep  the  roots  in  the  actual  material  in  which  they  have  grown,  and  if  it  were  possible 
to  get  all  the  roots  by  this  method  there  would  be  nothing  to  say  against  it.  This  is  not 
practicable,  however,  because  of  the  enormous  weight  of  the  balls,  and,  therefore,  roots 
are  chopped  off  and  a  great  shock  is  given  to  the  constitution  of  the  tree.  In  theory,  this 
method  is  inferior  to  the  other;  but,  I  repeat,  it  is  a  question  if  it  is  not  often  preferable. 

The  raking-out  method,  by  which  all  the  roots  are  saved,  is  a  beautiful  idea,  and,  in 
some  cases  can  perhaps  be  nearly  attained.  If  one  is  working  in  the  open,  level  or  undu- 
lating country,  with  easy  problems  of  transportation,  a  tree  may  possibly  be  so  dug,  the 
roots  protected  and  kept  moist,  and  the  tree  planted  without  delay.  In  hilly  regions, 
however,  and  where  all  sorts  of  delays  are  possible,  where  trees  have  very  likely  to  be 
hauled  through  some  narrow  lane,  and  widely  projecting  masses  of  roots  would  be  injured, 
it  is  a  grave  question  whether  one  will  actually  attain  the  ideal  conditions  that  the  raking 
out  and  preserving  of  all  the  roots  calls  for.  It  is  the  unexpected  that  happens  in  tree 
planting,  particularly  if  you  are  working  in  a  mountainous  district,  and  one  can  generally 
count  upon  having  delays  caused  by  breakdown  and  no  end  of  little  difficulties.  For 
reasons  such  as  these,  I  am  inclined  to  advocate  the  solid-ball  method  of  moving  large  trees. 

There  are  arguments  for  and  against  the  moving  of  trees  in  winter  weather.  In 
case  of  very  sandy  soils  it  is  impossible  to  carry  balls  except  when  they  are  frozen  solid. 
The  conditions  of  weather  that  freeze  them,  however,  are  not  the  best  for  handling  them. 
It  is  very  injurious  to  an  exposed  ball  to  have  the  roots  alternately  thawing  and  freezing, 
and  it  is  a  very  difficult  matter  absolutely  to  protect  them  against  exposure  during  trans- 
portation. Then,  again,  the  conditions  for  planting  are  not  of  the  best.  Special  care  has 
to  be  taken  to  keep  a  quantity  of  unfrozen  loam  on  hand  with  which  to  tamp  around  and 
under  the  ball.  For  these  and  other  reasons,  I  am  inclined  to  advocate  the  moving  in 
late  fall  or  the  early  spring,  in  case  the  conditions  of  soil  make  it  possible  to  transport 
a  sufficient  ball.  On  the  whole,  conditions  generally  combine  to  make  the  fall  a  better 
time  for  work.  The  roads  are  very  uncertain  in  springtime,  and  the  ground  is  liable  to 
cut  up  to  a  great  depth.  Of  course  the  system  whereby  the  earth  is  raked  out  and  all 
the  roots  preserved  is  impossible  to  use  in  winter  weather. 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  31 

My  own  practice  has  been  to  move  large  trees  with  balls.  I,  for  one,  would  like  very 
much  to  hear  of  the  actual  experience  of  some  of  our  members  with  the  other  method  of 
tree  moving.  There  are  practical  men  who  strongly  advocate  the  moving  of  such  trees 
as  maples  in  the  spring,  just  before  the  buds  break,  using  the  process  of  raking  out  and 
saving  all  the  roots. 

Speaking  of  what  others  advocate,  we  doubtless  all  have  met  the  tree  mover  who 
will  undertake  to  "move  trees  any  month  of  the  year,  but  who  prefers  not  to  move  in 
July  and  August."    Has  any  one  of  us  ever  had  the  nerve  to  move  trees  in  midsummer? 

Big  tree  moving  as  applied  to  conifers  is  an  even  more  serious  problem.  In  this 
region  we  look  upon  the  conifers  as  among  the  most  difficult  of  our  trees  to  plant  and 
raise,  and  I  think  very  few  want  to  undertake  the  transplanting  of  really  large  ones. 
There  are  regions,  however,  where  the  conifers  grow  more  readily  and  the  climate  seems 
kinder  to  them,  where  one  comes  to  have  little  more  hesitation  in  handling  the  native 
evergreens  than  we  feel  here  with  the  maple.  Experience  on  the  New  England  coast 
has  hardened  me  to  transplanting  conifers,  which  I  would  not  do  more  than  dream  about 
handling  in  this  region.  I  am  confident  that  on  certain  portions  of  the  New  England 
coast,  at  least,  there  is  no  difficulty  at  all  in  transplanting  conifers  20  or  25  feet  in  height 
with  entire  safety.     They  are  best  taken  with  frozen  balls. 

I  have  seen  a  planting  made  two  years  ago  down  east  by  one  of  the  founders  of  this 
society,  in  which  a  large  quantity  of  spruce  and  pine  from  15  to  25  feet  in  height  were 
used.  This  planting  has  been  very  successful  and  is  looking  well.  The  one  responsible 
for  it  can  doubtless  give  us  some  valuable  information,  based  on  his  experience,  if  he  is 
so  inclined.  I  feel  quite  sure  that  if  the  planting  referred  to  was  near  New  York  many 
of  the  larger  trees  would  have  had  to  be  replaced. 

Big  evergreen  moving  is  a  very  different  problem  in  New  Jersey  from  what  it  is  on 
the  Maine  coast.  I  think  one  reason  for  this  is  the  climate;  the  damp,  foggy  weather 
of  Maine  is  more  favorable  to  conifers.  Another  reason  lies  in  the  steady  cold  of  the  winter. 
One  can  count  there  upon  a  couple  of  months  or  more  in  which  the  roots  will  remain 
frozen,  and  balls  of  the  trees  will  be  solid  lumps  of  ice  and  frozen  dirt.  The  contractors  up 
there  think  nothing  of  hauling  a  lot  of  trees  out,  either  deciduous  or  evergreen,  and  leaving 
them  around  on  the  ground  like  so  much  building  material,  until  they  are  ready  to  plant 
them.  I  must  admit  that  while  it  gives  one  a  shock  to  see  this,  yet  when  everything  is 
frozen  solid  and  the  entire  ball  is  absolutely  inert  and  remains  so,  whether  in  the  air  or 
in  the  ground,  I  can  find  no  very  strong  argument  against  allowing  the  trees  to  stand 
around  awaiting  the  convenience  of  the  planter.  All  this  is  very  different  from  the  anxiety 
with  which  we  hurry  trees  into  the  ground  in  this  region  in  winter  weather  for  fear  a  thaw 
may  come,  if  for  no  other  reason.  I  have,  however,  at  this  writing,  two  or  three  deciduous 
trees  stranded  in  the  snow-drifts  along  a  roadside  in  New  Jersey.  I  have  not  abandoned 
hope,  but  I  have  ceased  worrying  about  them. 

I  feel  that  it  is  entirely  feasible  to  move  moderate-sized  evergreens  in  this  region 
up  to,  say,  15  or  20  feet  in  height,  by  proper  handling,  provided  great  care  is  given  them; 
but,  when  it  comes  to  large  trees,  the  only  way  to  move  them  successfully,  if  at  all,  is  to 
treat  each  tree  as  an  engineering  problem  and  take  all  that  belongs  to  it.  To  be  sure,  we 
occasionally  see  large  pines  and  spruces  moved  even  here.  I  have  in  mind  some  spruces 
which  I  happened  to  pass  when  they  were  being  moved  last  fall,  not  far  from  New  York, 


32  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

that  were  certainly  40  feet  high,  and  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  the  balls  were  not  over  7 
feet  in  diameter.  The  man  for  whom  they  were  moved  is  doubtless  congratulating 
himself  on  the  beauty  of  his  evergreens  this  winter.  I  think  we  all  know  what  his 
sentiments  will  be  next  season,  if  not  sooner. 

I  once  had  a  tree-moving  firm  offer  to  transplant  for  me  a  great  hemlock  some 
two  feet  in  diameter,  growing  on  a  steep  bank,  and  to  guarantee  it.  Needless  to  say,  I  did 
not  accept,  but  the  incident  serves  to  show  the  optimism  of  the  average  tree-moving 
firm;  that  is,  the  initial  optimism  instinctive  with  them  when  talking  of  a  prospective  deal. 

I  am  trying,  this  winter,  some  moving  of  a  rather  critical  nature  in  New  England; 
and,  while  I  have  a  great  degree  of  confidence  in  the  results,  yet  at  the  same  time  I  do 
not  feel  so  sure  as  with  work  that  I  already  have  abundant  precedent  for.  There  is  now 
on  the  skids,  moving  over  frozen  ground,  a  spruce  over  40  feet  in  height — a  specimen 
branched  to  the  ground.  This  tree  may  fail  me,  but  I  think  I  have  reason  for  con- 
siderable confidence.  The  frozen  ball  contains  practically  all  its  roots.  The  fact  that 
its  weight  is  estimated  at  twenty  tons  is  demonstration  that  a  serious  attempt  is  being 
made  to  do  justice  to  the  tree. 

I  should  greatly  like  to  hear  the  views  of  others  about  the  feasibility  of  transplanting 
large  evergreens,  and  if  I  could  look  into  the  future  with  greater  certainty,  I  would  give 
you  the  results  of  the  experience  I  am  preparing  for  myself  this  winter.  Doubtless  there 
are  some  who  will  say  they  would  rather  I  should  take  the  experience  and  they  will  take 
the  results. 

In  regard  to  the  details  of  planting,  has  anyone  facts  to  give  us  concerning  planting 
in  conditions  different  from  those  in  which  the  tree  grew? 

How  about  planting  on  a  hillside  a  tree  which  grew  naturally  on  a  level,  and  thus 
burying  one  side  of  the  ball  perhaps  4  or  5  feet  deep? 

What  is  there  in  the  old-country  idea  that  a  tree  should  always  be  planted  in  the 
same  relations  to  the  points  of  the  compass  as  those  in  which  it  grew? 

Do  you  advocate  the  mingling  of  well-rotted  manure  in  the  loam  with  which  the 
tree  is  planted,  or  would  you  use  it  as  a  mulch  after  planting,  relying  on  watering  and 
rains  to  carry  it  to  the  roots? 

Do  you  advocate  the  use  of  ground  bone  mingled  with  the  loam? 

Do  you  think  it  worth  while  to  lay  a  series  of  tile  carrying  water  about  the  ball?  Or 
would  you  set  tile  upright  in  the  ground  about  the  ball,  to  be  filled  with  water?  Or  would 
you  depend  solely  upon  the  water  soaking  through  from  the  surface? 

What  does  experience  dictate  concerning  the  moving  of  trees  from  a  low-lying  wet 
ground  to  upland  situations? 

Is  it  advisable  to  cut  back  the  branches  when  a  large  tree  is  transplanted?  Would 
you  simply  give  a  general  shearing  off  of  the  outermost  twigs,  or  would  you  leave  the 
tree  absolutely  untrimmed  until  it  had  a  chance  to  establish  new  roots? 

I  have  seen  maples  which  had  been  rather  severely  topped  in  order  to  maintain  a 
certain  height  in  a  formal  scheme  where  they  were  transplanted,  fail  absolutely  within 
a  year.  It  was  not  conclusively  demonstrated  that  the  failure  was  due  to  topping,  but  I 
strongly  suspect  this  was  the  principal  cause. 

The  practice  is  advocated  by  some  of  wrapping  the  trunks  of  newly  transplanted  trees 
with  canvas  or  with  straw  rope,  the  object  being  to  minimize  evaporation  from  the  bark 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  33 

and  keep  it  cool.  The  advantage  claimed  for  the  straw  rope  is  that  it  will  gradually 
waste  away  and  accustom  the  bark  to  exposure. 

The  careful  guying  or  anchoring  of  large  trees  I  consider  an  important  matter, 
although  I  know  many  rely  upon  careful  planting  or  the  weight  of  the  ball  to  hold  the 
tree  in  place.  Often  this  will  suffice,  but  it  is  the  exceptional  for  which  one  must  provide. 
I  have  seen  large  trees  which  had  been  planted  the  previous  fall  and  were  doing  well, 
tilted  at  an  angle  of  20  degrees  from  the  vertical  by  the  wind  of  a  July  thunderstorm. 
In  many  cases,  doubtless,  the  weight  of  the  ball  does  sufficiently  anchor  the  tree,  but  it 
is  not  to  be  depended  upon. 

One  disadvantage  of  a  winter  transplanting  is  that  unequal  settling  is  very  liable 
to  occur  in  the  following  spring.  Of  course,  every  precaution  should  be  taken  to  true  the 
beds  and  fit  them  to  the  ball  before  planting;  but  the  chances  are  that  in  any  case  where 
vertical  alignment  is  essential,  some  readjustment  will  be  necessary  the  next  season. 

A  great  deal  might  be  said  regarding  the  relative  suitability  of  different  kinds  of 
trees  for  transplanting,  about  the  shape,  character  of  branching,  and  conditions  of  health 
advisable  in  any  specimen  to  be  moved,  etc.;  but,  perhaps,  enough  has  been  suggested  for 
immediate  discussion. 

I  trust  this  paper  will  induce  discussion.  I  hope  that  not  everyone  will  agree  with  such 
opinions  as  I  have  expressed.  After  all  is  said  and  done,  I  come  back  to  the  safe  and  con- 
servative stand  that,  unless  circumstances  make  it  especially  desirable,  I  prefer  to  plant 
small  trees  in  the  best  possible  manner  and  await  results. 

Mr.  Langton:  The  large  tree  seems  to  be  rampant  in  the  land,  and  very  few  of  us  there  are  who- 
are  not  possessed  of  clients  who  are  desirous  of  having  a  full-grown  tree  put  in  their  ground  while  they 
wait.  Whether  or  not  this  is  to  be  a  success  only  the  future  can  tell.  To  my  mind,  the  success  or  lack  of 
success  will  depend  largely  upon  whether  the  tree  has  been  prepared  beforehand  for  this  heroic  treatment. 
I  saw,  only  the  past  week,  on  a  large  estate,  two  maples  that  must  have  been  twelve  inches  in  diameter, 
and  a  pin  oak  that  was  twelve  inches  or  fourteen  inches  in  diameter,  that  had  been  moved  now  about 
three  years,  and  they  have  every  evidence  of  thriving.  This  last  year's  growth  was  vigorous.  In  my  own 
practice  some  conifers  16  to  18  feet  high  were  moved  without  any  setback  at  all,  and  seem  to  have  gotten 
ahead.  Those  who  are  sufficiently  intelligent  to  be  patient,  and  take  medium-sized  trees,  will  usually  get 
the  best  results;  but,  if  laborers  and  superintendents  can  be  had  who  are  sufficiently  painstaking  in  taking 
out  the  roots,  there  seems  to  be  no  reason,  from  the  experience  1  have  had,  why,  if  preliminary  arrange- 
ments be  made  to  move  the  tree,  and  the  tree  be  prepared  for  this  ordeal,  the  largest  of  trees  may  not  be 
moved  successfully. 

Mr.  Vaux:  My  experience  in  moving  trees  of  large  size  first  occurred  about  twenty  years  ago  near 
Newport.  Mr.  Edwin  Booth  wanted  some  large  trees  at  a  place  he  had  at  Seconnet,  and  he  was  willing 
to  pay  what  it  would  cost  to  get  the  trees  over  there  and  plant  them.  He  had  first  to  find  trees  in  the  neigh- 
borhood. There  were  some  large  elms,  about  a  foot  in  diameter,  and  they  were  moved  in  the  winter  with  a 
ball  and  put  in  very  carefully — some  eight  or  ten  of  them — and  did  very  well  the  first  year.  They  were  about 
ten  inches  in  diameter,  and  the  ball  was  twelve  feet  across — about  as  large  as  could  be  moved  without 
having  a  wagon.  I  went  down  and  looked  the  trees  over  about  eight  years  after  they  had  been  moved. 
They  had  just  about  held  their  own,  with  no  growth  in  the  eight  years,  and  they  looked  rather  feeble;  but 
the  immediate  effect  was  attained,  and  it  seems  to  me  that,  where  people  want  the  immediate  effect  and 
are  willing  to  pay  for  it,  we  shall  certainly  have  to  use  the  new  appliances  for  moving  trees.  The  popular 
idea  of  taking  a  tree  about  six  inches  in  diameter,  which  you  can  move  easily,  is  the  best  way,  of  course 
but  those  who  are  rich  do  not  want  to  do  that.  In  a  great  many  cases,  we  shall  have  to  meet  the  want 
of  the  people  for  an  immediate  effect,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  that  can  be  done,  if  we  replace  the  trees  that 
die.  Of  course,  we  cannot  do  that  along  an  avenue.  That  can  be  done  only  on  grounds  where  there  is  irreg- 
ular planting.  I  think  there  is  a  pretty  sure  failure  where  the  avenue  trees  are  moved,  because  they  will  not 
come  up  to  the  standard. 


34  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

Mr.  Parsons:  I  am  one  of  the  individuals  who  does  not  believe  in  moving  big  trees.  I  believe  that  a 
tree,  if  properly  prepared  (that  is,  by  one,  two,  or  three  years'  root-pruning)  and  properly  nourished  and 
stimulated  to  develop  a  new  set  of  fibers  (which  is  very  rarely  done)  can  be  moved  with  a  reasonable  degree 
of  success.  But,  when  I  say  that  I  do  not  believe  in  moving  large  trees,  I  am  governed  by  the  experience 
I  have  had.  I  commenced  to  move  large  trees  twenty-five  years  ago  for  Mr.  Dana.  Some  of  them  were 
eight,  ten,  and  eighteen  inches  in  diameter.  I  moved  one  large  cut-leaved  beech  (or  superintended  it)  at  that 
time  that  was  probably  forty  feet  high  and  thirty-five  feet  in  diameter.  It  took  ten  horses  to  move  it  on  a 
sled,  and  three  days,  and  that  tree  stands  today  on  Mr.  Dana's  lawn  and  is  alive.  But  I  do  not  want  such 
trees.  In  that  whole  time  these  trees  have  not  grown  as  much  as  three  or  four  feet,  and  they  have  a  certain 
stunted  appearance.  They  are  not  good  trees,  and  it  is  of  no  use  pretending  that  they  are  good  trees.  I 
contend  that  the  percentage  of  trees  that  really  thrive  in  transplanting — and  I  mean  by  "thrive,"  grow — 
is  so  small  that  it  is  not  just  to  spend  money  in  that  way  for  a  client.  If  those  who  move  trees  always  took 
exactly  the  right  tree,  with  the  right  roots,  and  the  right  condition  of  fiber  and  used  the  right  appliances, 
and  had  the  necessary  experience, — and  I  do  not  deny  that  the  ideal  tree  can  be  found, — it  might  be  reason- 
able to  spend  money  on  it.  The  percentage  of  large  trees  moved  successfully  is,  however,  likely  to  be  very 
small,  as  these  ideal  trees  are  very  rare.  The  chances  of  success  are  too  small,  therefore,  for  me  to  believe 
in  using  large  trees. 

Miss  Jones:  My  experience  in  moving  large  trees  has  been  very  much  the  same  as  Mr.  Parsons, — 
that  the  large  trees  do  not  grow,  and  they  do  not  pay  for  themselves  in  any  way. 

The  question  that  interests  me,  especially,  is  the  moving  of  trees  from  low-lying,  wet  ground  to  upland 
situations,  which  I  have  done  with  considerable  success;  that  is,  trees  which  are  as  large  as  I  care  to  move, 
say  eight  inches  in  diameter.  I  have  moved  some  maples  from  a  swamp  in  which  they  grew  so  that  their 
roots  were  up  in  the  ground,  to  an  upland  hill,  quite  dry,  some  years  ago,  and  those  trees  have  done  as  well 
as  if  they  were  still  in  a  swamp.  As  to  other  trees,  I  have  no  knowledge,  as  I  have  never  transplanted  them. 
I  thought  I  would  try  these  trees,  as  they  were  out  of  the  ground,  and  two  of  them  were  needed  on  a  hill. 
My  practice  is  not  to  cut  back  the  branches,  but  to  leave  the  tree  as  it  comes  out  of  the  ground,  so  as  to 
see  which  branches  will  grow,  and  then,  of  course,  to  thin  out  the  ones  that  die.  I  have  never  topped  trees, 
simply  because  I  have  never  happened  to  plant  big  trees  where  they  needed  to  be  topped,  and  I  should 
certainly  dislike  to  do  it  very  much.  Mr.  Greenleaf  does  not  say  that  failure  was  due  to  topping,  but  he  sus- 
pects that  this  was  the  case.  In  all  my  personal  experience,  I  have  never  laid  tile  around  the  ball,  nor  have 
I  put  tile  into  the  ball  to  carry  water.  The  trees  have  always  been  watered  carefully — at  least  the  men  have 
been  told  to  water  them  carefully  every  evening;  and,  then,  of  course,  where  it  is  possible,  the  tree  is  prepared 
for  about  two  years  in  advance.  Personally,  I  try  to  move  trees  without  the  balls — without  the  frozen 
balls — because  my  experience  has  been  that  trees  moved  with  the  roots  taken  out  succeed  better  than  those 
moved  in  winter,  with  the  exception  of  a  very  few  which  I  have  moved  in  Maine,  and  there  the  winter 
is  so  long  that  you  run  no  risk  of  having  the  ball  thaw  away.  It  seems  practically  the  only  sensible  way 
of  having  them  moved  in  that  part  of  the  country,  and  there  it  succeeds  admirably. 

Mr.  Leavitt:  I  feel,  with  regard  to  large  tree  moving,  that  it  is  desirable  only  where  quick  results 
are  absolutely  demanded.  I  have  occasionally  transplanted  trees  from  eight  to  ten  inches  in  diameter 
successfully,  but  I  have  very  rarely  attempted  it.  Wherever  I  have  done  it,  I  have  always  tried  to  plant 
small  trees  in  case  of  failure,  as  I  did  not  have  any  confidence  in  it.  I  feel  that  the  moving  of  trees  in  the 
west,  or  dry  countries,  is  practically  impossible,  as  the  evaporation  from  the  bark  and  the  lack  of  moisture 
to  replace  the  evaporation  impose  too  severe  a  strain.  Furthermore,  from  some  observations  that  I  have 
made  in  Colorado,  I  am  convinced  that  not  only  the  trees  which  are  planted,  whether  small  or  large,  but 
also  the  trees  which  are  growing  naturally  are  put  to  a  severe  test  every  spring  by  lack  of  moisture,  on 
account  of  the  frozen  ground.  The  ditches  from  which  these  trees  are  irrigated  are  almost  entirely  cut  off 
late  in  autumn,  and  the  water  not  turned  in  again  until  the  spring,  and  the  people  wonder  why  the  trees 
die.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  they  are  without  any  moisture  at  all,  for  the  cold  period,  in  Denver,  and  I  under- 
stand that  this  is  so  in  other  irrigation  districts,  though  I  am  not  familiar  with  them.  In  regard  to  moving 
trees  with  a  ball,  or  by  means  of  taking  out  the  roots  and  tying  them  up,  my  experience  has  been  that  it 
is  better  to  try  the  ball  in  any  case,  and  then  handle  as  many  of  the  roots  as  you  can  beside,  since  the  roots 
are  so  bruised  and  twisted  by  attempting  to  take  care  of  them,  and  they  are  so  dried  out  and  exposed  ordi- 
narily, that  they  are  rendered  practically  useless.  If  a  proper  cradle  can  be  made,  and  the  roots  absolutely 
protected  by  moss  or  burlap,  I  think  that  the  theory  of  doing  away  with  the  ball  would  be  practicable;  but 
it  is  so  difficult  to  get  workmen  to  do  it  that  it  is  almost  out  of  the  question. 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  35 

In  regard  to  the  time,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  autumn  is  the  best  time,  if  the  roots  can  be  protected, 
as  the  tree  is  well  set  and,  if  puddled  with  water,  which  I  have  found  an  excellent  thing  to  get  the  earth 
entirely  around  the  roots,  the  tree  starts  off  in  the  spring  without  any  delay  and,  if  it  is  properly  guyed, 
it  has  not  had  the  little  rootlets  rubbed  off.  Whereas,  if  it  is  planted  in  midwinter  or  early  spring,  the  ground 
being  frozen,  it  is  difficult  to  pack  the  soil  about  the  rootlets,  and  it  never  gets  a  firm  hold 

In  regard  to  the  orientation  of  the  tree,  I  believe  thoroughly  that  there  is  something  in  that.  A  tree 
growing  has  certain  structural  strength  in  its  roots  and  in  its  branches,  and  it  has  grown  to  withstand  the 
winds  coming  generally  from  one  direction — the  hardest  winds.  When  it  is  transplanted  and  all  its  strength 
is  reversed,  the  structure  must  be  subjected  to  a  disastrous  strain,  which  may  have  a  great  deal  to  do  with 
its  dying.  I  have  noticed  in  many  places,  where  the  sparse  growths  were  trimmed  off,  leaving  a  few  trees 
which  I  hoped  to  maintain  and  have  branch  out,  that  they  very  often  blew  down  or  died  when  the  protection 
was  removed.  They  had  evidently  grown  for  one  condition,  and  when  submitted  to  another, — though 
the  ground  had  not  been  disturbed, — they  failed,  and  I  think  that  is  something  to  be  considered  in  orienting 
a  tree. 

Mr.  Lowrie:  One  fact  has  not  been  specially  touched  upon,  and  that  is  the  desirability  of  having 
large  trees  in  certain  instances.  By  large  trees,  I  do  not  mean  a  tree  which  is  a  foot  or  eighteen  inches  in 
diameter,  necessarily,  but  one  which  may  be  from  four  to  eight  inches  in  diameter,  and  I  think  there  are 
cases  where  such  a  tree  is  very  desirable,  and  almost  any  expense  can  properly  be  incurred  in  order  to  secure 
it.  Take,  for  instance,  a  case  where  you  have  a  house  in  an  absolutely  treeless  plot  of  ground — a  new  house, 
say.  I  think  if  you  can  get  two  or  three  fairly  good-sized  trees  established  near  that  house,  it  will  give  an 
effect  of  age;  and  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  they  are  far  better  than  all  the  shrubbery  and  small  trees  you 
could  plant.  I  have  in  mind  one  particular  instance  of  a  fern-leaved  beech,  which  I  transplanted  about 
twelve  years  ago.  It  was  a  tree  about  fifteen  or  eighteen  feet  high,  and  about  five  inches  in  diameter  at  the 
butt.  I  moved  it  with  a  ball,  and  for  about  two  years  it  stood  still,  but  was  in  a  fairly  live  condition;  after 
that,  it  grew  very  successfully,  and  is  now,  I  suppose,  twenty-five  feet  high  and,  say,  eight  inches  in  diameter, 
and  a  very  fresh  and  very  handsome  fern-leaved  beech.  The  success  of  that  work  was  due  to  the  careful 
securing  of  the  roots — it  not  being  an  easy  tree  to  move — and  the  plentiful  use  of  water  during  the  first 
year  or  so.    I  think  that  one-half  the  cause  of  success  in  moving  large  trees  is  the  thorough  watering. 

Miss  Bullard  not  being  present,  a  letter  from  her  was  read  by  the  President  from  which  the  following 
is  quoted: 

I  am  sure  we  all  agree  with  the  author  of  the  paper  on  one  point,  i.  e.,  that  we  should  prefer  to  plant 
small  trees  in  the  best  possible  manner  and  await  results. 

Personally  I  have  endeavored,  and  generally  succeeded,  in  avoiding  the  risk,  and  the  long-continued 
nervous  strain  involved  in  the  other  course,  the  securing  of  "immediate  effect"  by  moving  large  trees,  although 
sometimes  it  is  insisted  upon,  and  attended  with  varying  results. 

As  a  bit  of  ancient  history,  I  recall  the  apparently  reckless  way  in  which  the  large  trees  were  moved 
about  during  the  construction  days  of  Prospect  Park  in  Brooklyn,  when  it  became  necessary  to  break  up 
the  hard  lines  and  solid  blocks  of  woodland,  left  by  the  market-garden  farms.  The  large  maples  and  other 
trees  were  whirled  out  of  the  wood-edges  into  the  open  meadows,  on  the  large-wheeled  apparatus,  invented, 
I  believe,  by  one  of  the  master-gardeners.  As  I  remember  it,  very  large  forces  of  men  were  then  employed, 
and  the  work  was  being  rushed  to  please  the  tax-payers,  by  opening  up  the  long  "West  Drive,"  and  the 
meadows  and  woodlands.  Each  operation  was  rushed  with  amazing  rapidity  but  with  military  precision 
and  there  was  no  hesitation  about  remaining  after  hours  to  complete  the  work.  Most  of  the  Park  officers, 
and  many  of  the  men,  had  been  with  the  armies  of  the  Civil  War,  and  the  discipline  was  perfect.  These 
conditions  may  have  helped  in  some  measure  to  insure  the  success  which  attended  most  of  these  transplant- 
ings.  No  doubt,  infinite  care  was  exercised  by  those  in  authority  in  the  selection  of  the  trees,  and  in  the 
times  of  planting,  which,  as  I  recall,  were  in  the  spring,  the  fall,  and  sometimes,  in  the  winter  with  immense 
frozen  balls.  My  very  youthful  interest  in  it  all  at  the  time,  was  chiefly  in  the  spectacular  effect  of  the 
transformation  scenes,  as  the  hard  wood-edges  were  broken  into  natural  lines,  and  the  fine  individual  trees 
took  their  places  upon  the  lawns  and  meadows  and  along  the  driveways,  with  so  little  apparent 
disturbance  of  their  comfort  and  well-being. 

What  was  the  exact  proportion  of  loss  I  am,  naturally,  unable  to  state,  but  I  do  remember  the  stress 
which  was  laid  upon  the  careful  preparation  of  the  immense  holes,  the  good  clean  loam,  and  the  top  dressing, 
and  the  mulching;  this  last,  especially,  seemed  to  be  a  matter  of  great  moment  and  careful  attention  until 
the  tree  had  become  thoroughly  established. 


36 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 


A  very  successful  tree  planter  whom  I  used  to  employ  made  determined  effort  to  retain  the  normal 
position  of  the  trees  with  regard  to  points  of  compass,  whatever  may  have  been  my  wish  with  regard  to  the 
artistic  effect.  He  generally  "cut  back"  much  less  severely  than  is  usually  the  custom.  He  had  no  rule  or 
formula,  that  I  could  discover,  but  a  sort  of  instinct,  one  might  almost  fancy  it  a  sympathy,  for  the  needs 
and  requirements  of  the  individual  specimens.  And  his  plantings  were  very  successful,  where  the  subse- 
quent care  was  at  all  adequate.  This,  of  course,  we  could  not  always  control.  He  would  never  permit  the 
rich  fertilizer  to  come  in  contact,  directly,  with  the  roots,  but  used  it  on  top  of  the  "clean  loam"  in  which 
the  tree  was  planted. 

Mr.  Olmsted:  My  experience  has  been  of  rather  a  vague  character.  That  is  to  say,  I  have  not  had 
personal  direction  of  tree  moving,  but  have  had  practically  all  the  experiences  that  have  been  mentioned 
going  on  under  my  general  direction.  I  think  that  there  is  no  question  but  that  every  landscape  architect  ought 
to  do  what  he  can  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  dissuade  clients  from  undertaking  the  removal  of  large  trees, 
and,  if  he  cannot  do  that,  at  least  he  ought  to  reduce  the  number  to  be  moved  as  much  as  possible,  so  as  to 
avoid  the  waste  of  money  and  lack  of  success  which  cannot  fail  to  be  injurious  to  landscape  architects,  as 
well  as  to  the  practical  men  engaged  in  moving  the  trees.  I  think  a  great  many  tree-moving  concerns  have 
sprung  up  all  over  the  country,  ready  to  move  large  trees,  because  they  can  get  employment  in  that  way 
from  clients  who  have  money  and  no  experience,  and,  from  my  knowledge  of  the  results,  I  think  they  ought 
to  be  discouraged.  I  think  that  there  are  cases,  as  Mr.  Lowrie  says,  when  landscape  architects  may  con- 
cede that  the  moving  of  a  few  trees  is  worth  the  effort;  but  I  think  the  effort,  in  such  cases,  ought  to  be  very 
much  more  thorough  than  it  often  has  been.  I  am  rather  accustomed  to  tell  clients  who  want  large  trees 
that  it  is  a  matter  of  $1,000  to  $2,000  per  tree.  If  they  can  put  up  with  that,  then  I  am  willing  to  have  it 
done,  provided  there  are  some  chances  of  success.  There  are  two  trees  which  surprise  me  with  the  success  of 
their  moving  in  Graceland  Cemetery.  They  are  elms  and  stand  near  the  crematory.  One  was  moved 
fourteen  miles.  They  were  shown  to  me,  and  they  are  an  actual  success.  One  was  eighteen  inches  in  diam- 
eter and  the  other  twenty  inches.  They  are  large  in  appearance,  about  sixty  feet  high,  and  with  an  equal 
spread  of  branches.  They  were  moved,  of  course,  at  great  expense.  I  was  told  the  cost.  I  think  it  was 
$3,000.  In  that  case,  all  the  roots  were  removed,  saved  very  carefully  to  the  extreme  end,  and  the  result 
was  that  there  were  over  fifty  large  roots  that  were  from  thirty  to  forty  or  fifty  feet  long  sticking  out  in  all 
directions.  They  were  carefully  wrapped  in  moss  and  burlap,  and  kept  moist  and  protected  from  breaking 
in  the  moving  and  were  tied  up  to  the  upper  part  of  the  trunk  one  by  one.  It  was  a  very  heavy  thing  to 
move,  and  they  had  to  take  away  the  telegraph  wires  and  telegraph  poles,  as  well  as  some  trees  along  the 
road,  which,  of  course,  added  a  great  deal  to  the  expense;  but,  with  the  thorough  preparation  of  the  ground, 
and  the  extreme  care  in  putting  the  roots  in  moss,  and  all  that,  and  spreading  them  carefully,  and  watering 
them  thoroughly  for  several  years,  they  actually  were  a  perfect  success.  Wild  plants  were  planted  under 
them — such  as  the  aster  and  golden  rod  and  ferns,  and  near-by  were  some  bushes,  so  that  the  total  effect 
was  remarkably  picturesque  and  natural.  I  do  not  think  anyone  would  suspect  that  they  had  been  moved. 
The  great  difficulty  in  moving  trees  is  to  find  men  who  will  take  the  necessary  pains;  it  is  almost  impossible 
to  give  instructions  to  anybody  else,  and  the  landscape  architect  has  to  direct  everything  himself,  with 
the  sense  of  responsibility  for  the  result,  and  practically  regardless  of  expense.  The  contract  system  is  to 
be  condemned. 

The  matter  of  protecting  the  trunk  from  the  sun  has  not  been  touched  upon.  I  think  it  is  important 
in  respect  to  any  trunk,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  if  the  protection  could  be  properly  removed  the  trees  would 
not  die;  but  it  is  simply  let  fall  off,  and  then  very  often  it  causes  the  tree  to  decay,  and  does  more  harm  than 
good. 


ITALIAN   GARDENS 

By   FERRUCCIO    VITALE 

(Meeting  of  April  18.  1905) 

IF  I  should  be  asked  what  an  Italian  garden  is,  it  would  be  difficult  to  reply.  It  would 
be  much  easier  to  say  what  it  is  not.  It  is  not  such  a  concentration  of  stone  or  marble 
benches,  wells,  statues,  and  pergolas,  in  a  small,  geometrically  shaped  and  generally  flat 
piece  of  ground,  as  I  have  mostly  seen  called  by  the  name.  A  nation,  as  a  whole,  produces 
the  art  which  the  nature  of  its  land,  the  character  of  its  people,  and  the  climate  suggest. 
An  artist,  individually,  produces  what  his  environment,  what  his  personality,  and  what 
his  studies  dictate;  but  the  influence  of  the  surroundings  in  which  he  was  born  and  raised 
is  much  more  intense  and  tenacious  than  all  the  others.  It  is  perhaps  for  this  reason  that, 
although  we  are  willing  to  give  up,  so  to  speak,  in  matters  of  engineering  and  detail,  which 
were  determined  in  our  minds  after  training  and  experience,  we  are  not  equally  willing 
to  give  up  in  matters  of  conception  and  design. 

Italy,  if  we  study  its  architecture  or  anything  else,  must  be  considered  as  an  aggregation 
of  parts  more  or  less  different  from  each  other,  and  not  as  a  whole.  The  political  divisions, 
which  have  kept  the  country  for  centuries  under  different  rules  and  rulers,  have  divided, 
also,  the  people  of  the  various  provinces,  and  radically  molded  in  different  ways  their 
intellectual  and  artistic  tendencies.  Moreover,  the  geographical  form  of  Italy,  its  enormous 
length  in  proportion  to  its  width,  its  large  northern  plains,  and  its  hilly  or  mountainous 
aspect  in  the  central  and  southern  parts,  cause  a  much  greater  variety  of  climate  than  is 
commonly  recognized  when  one  speaks  of  its  blue  skies  and  sunny  slopes. 

I  would,  therefore,  begin  by  making  the  following  division:  Lombardy;  Venice;  Genoa 
and  the  Riviera;  Tuscany;  the  Pontifical  States;  the  ex-kingdom  of  the  two  Sicilies.  I 
do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  take  into  separate  account  the  gardens  of  Piedmont,  because, 
in  my  opinion,  they  might,  with  but  few  exceptions,  be  more  properly  included  among 
French  rather  than  among  Italian  gardens;  for  France,  Piedmont's  close  neighbor,  has 
at  all  times  exercised  a  great  influence  upon  that  small  province. 

Lombardy,  the  Venetian  States,  Genoa  and  its  Riviera,  differ  considerably  in  their 
physical  aspect.  The  first  is  a  wide  and  continuous  plain,  crowned  by  the  lake  region; 
the  second  is  partly  covered  by  picturesque  volcanic  hills,  while  the  third  may  be  considered 
as  a  narrow  strip  of  mountainous  land  which  forms  a  frame  of  granite  to  one  of  the  most 
beautiful  bays  in  the  world.  But  all  three  have  a  point  in  common — and  a  very  influential 
one  for  the  purpose  of  our  study — namely,  the  character  of  the  people  in  the  days  when 
landscape  architecture  was  in  its  bloom.  All  three  of  these  provinces  possessed  a  large 
number  of  very  wealthy  nobles,  engaged  in  maritime  commerce  or  speculation,  who  patron- 
ized art  as  a  diversion  from  their  daily  cares  in  business.  Foreign  influence  was  necessarily 
very  strong  with  these  men  who,  as  a  rule,  traveled  widely.  The  most  striking  effect  of 
this  influence  may  be  seen  in  Genoese  and  Venetian  architecture  where  the  French,  Spanish, 
and  Moorish  styles  are  frequently  very  evident. 

Outside  of  this  wealthy  coterie,  the  people  took  no  interest  whatsoever  in  art.  Thrifty 
and  industrious,  they  attended  only  to  the  art  of  making  money;  the  great  artists,  therefore, 
were,  with  few  exceptions,  imported  from  other  provinces.    The  same  character  has  pre- 

(37) 


38  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

vailed  to  this  day  with  the  people  of  Genoa  and  Lombardy,  and  the  same  effects  may 
readily  be  seen  in  their  modern  products  of  art.  Commercialism  is  everywhere  the  basis 
of  the  work.  To  please  the  client's  taste,  and  to  make  a  show  of  his  wealth  is  the  sole  object 
of  the  artist,  who  derives  large  profits  from  his  adulation. 

The  Venetian  State  has  had  the  advantage  over  the  others  in  giving  birth  to  an 
architect  who  may  be  considered  a  star  of  the  first  class  —  Palladio.  To  this  man,  and 
to  him  alone,  is  due  a  real  type  of  Venetian  conception  in  architecture,  and  everyone  of 
you,  I  feel  sure,  remembers  the  Palazzo  dei  Signori  and  the  Villa  Giacomelli.  Vicenza, 
Verona,  Padua,  and  Venice  have  many  examples  of  his  work,  and  the  summer  country 
residences  for  the  wealthy  Venetians,  ancient  and  modern  alike,  have  all  borrowed, 
more  or  less,  from  the  beautiful  construction  of  the  gardens  of  Villa  Giacomelli 
at  Maser.  I  should  like  to  consider  this  villa  in  detail,  as  it  belonged  to  my  ancestors 
for  centuries,  but  I  cannot  stop  to  enlarge  upon  it  now  as  I  have  more  important  work 
to  consider. 

In  Tuscany,  we  find,  in  my  opinion,  the  truest  exponents  of  a  simple,  pure,  unpre- 
tentious, and  sincerely  inspired  architecture,  one  which  I  believe  worthy  of  constituting 
a  standard  for  all  those  who  desire  today  to  engage  in  the  art  of  gardening.  Tuscany  forms 
a  curious-enough  exception  in  the  world  of  art.  It  is  a  country  of  self-made  people,  where 
everyone,  both  rich  and  poor,  noble  and  civilian,  educated  and  ignorant,  take,  and  have 
always  taken,  an  active  interest  in  art.  Its  people  consider  literature,  painting,  sculpture, 
music,  and  architecture  as  something  that  cannot  be  the  private  property  of  a  few  privileged 
men,  but  a  property  that  belongs  to  the  world  at  large  and  to  each  of  them  in  particular. 
Tuscany  has  never  had  a  nobility  of  the  blood,  and  its  entire  history  is  a  history  of  democ- 
racy. Especially  is  this  true  of  Florence;  her  wealthy  merchants,  the  Pitti,  the  Strozzi, 
the  Riccardi,  the  Serristori,  and  others— all  men  of  considerable  taste,  and  continually 
thrown  into  contact  with  all  classes  of  people  on  account  of  the  political  system  of  those 
times,  had  a  staff  of  artists  of  all  kinds  at  their  permanent  service,  who  lived  with  them 
and  studied  with  them  the  problems  they  had  to  solve.  The  rest  of  the  people  were  "taken 
in,"  so  to  speak,  in  this  collective  work  through  the  nightly  discussions  at  the  "Arti" 
gatherings;  or,  to  use  a  modern  term,  at  the  meetings  of  the  trades-unions  of  those  days. 
The  natural  result  of  such  a  system  is  obvious.  In  the  first  place,  it  made  possible  a  homo- 
geneity of  work  and,  in  the  second  place,  the  masses  of  the  people  were  continually  being 
educated  and  kept  in  condition  to  produce  new  artists  at  all  times. 

Whoever  is  familiar  with  Florentine  architecture,  or  the  architecture  of  Pisa,  Lucca, 
and  Siena,  will  undoubtedly  recollect  the  uniformity  of  style,  the  simplicity,  the  lack  of 
pretense,  even  in  such  a  colossal  work  as  the  Pitti  Palace.  Equally  pure  in  line  and  sober 
in  ornamentation  is  the  Tuscan  art  of  gardening,  although  today  very  few  of  the  old  gardens 
stand  as  they  were  originally  laid  out,  many  villas  having  fallen  into  the  hands  of  foreigners 
who  have  introduced  "modern  improvements"  into  the  old  fabrics,  and  have,  more  or 
less,  altered  the  original  design.  However,  the  main  features  of  the  works  still  survive 
to  show  the  conceptions  of  the  different  architects.  The  site  for  the  villa  was  almost  invari- 
ably selected  at  the  top  of  a  hill  or  well  up  its  sunny  slope,  so  as  to  command  the  largest 
possible  view  from  every  window  of  the  house  and  from  as  many  points  of  the  garden 
as  its  architectural  features  would  allow.  This  is  a  very  essential  point.  Water  conditions, 
nature  of  soil,  etc.,  were,  of  course,  taken  into  consideration,  but  were  factors  quite  secondary 
to  the  one  I  have  mentioned.    Once  determined  where  to  build,  the  next  problem  to  solve 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  39 

was  bow  to  build,  and  to  the  solution  of  this  problem  the  artist's  mind  was  entirely  devoted 
for  a  long  time. 

At  this  point  of  the  study  enter  into  play  taste,  sentiment,  and  personality,  and,  for 
this  reason,  it  is  impossible  to  analyze  these  works  of  art,  or  to  derive  a  rule  or  a  formula 
from  them.  Three  characteristics  we  invariably  find,  and  they,  together  with  the  beau- 
tiful vistas  the  place  could  afford,  constituted  two-thirds  of  their  charm.  These  three 
characteristics  are  simplicity,  an  intimate  relation  between  garden  and  house,  and  complete 
seclusion. 

Their  simplicity  was  due  to  the  instinctive  and  intense  dislike  that  all  Tuscans  feel 
toward  any  exterior  display  or  ornamentation.  No  matter  how  superb  the  interior  of 
the  house,  or  how  rich  and  vast  the  property  might  be,  the  outside  appearances  were 
invariably  demure  and  sober — straight  lines,  vast  terraces  sustained  by  undecorated  walls, 
wide  alleys  and  walks,  a  few  statues  and  fountains.  The  planting  outside  the  flower- 
garden  was  also  simple:  high  hedges  along  the  walks;  beautiful  indigenous  trees,  especially 
to  form  alleys;  formal  beds  wherever  there  was  a  concourse  or  a  fountain;  many  terra- 
cotta vases  holding  lemon  trees;  plenty  of  shaded  walks  and  corners  where  a  stone  or 
marble  seat  offered  timely  rest,  and,  in  most  cases,  the  enjoyment  of  a  beautiful  view. 

A  close  relation  between  the  house  and  grounds  always  existed,  so  that  villa  and 
garden  were  harmoniously  united.  To  this  effect,  around  the  house,  an  esplanade,  or  first 
terrace,  was,  more  or  less  laboriously,  architecturally  treated,  and  was  connected  by  a 
staircase  with  a  lower  terrace  designed  as  a  flower-garden,  so  that  two  main  objects  were 
obtained:  to  have  a  connecting  link  between  house  and  garden,  and  to  have  a  part  of 
the  grounds  (the  nearest  to  the  residence)  whence  the  eye  could  embrace  at  a  glance  the 
whole  of  the  design  and  enjoy  its  beauty  and  fascination  of  color.  Very  often,  a  third  still 
lower  terrace  was  less  elaborately  treated,  as  if  the  intention  of  the  architect  was  gradually 
to  prepare  the  visitor  for  the  end  of  the  formal  design,  and  for  the  beginning  of  the  picturesque 
surroundings  of  nature. 

It  is  necessary  to  emphasize  the  essentiality  of  seclusion.  In  general,  the  Italian  style 
of  landscape  architecture  is  formal,  and  in  its  formality  consist  its  originality  and  beauty. 
By  enclosing  the  garden,  a  frame,  or  setting,  is  created  which  gives  relief  to  the  design, 
limits  the  area  from  which  the  eye  can  "take  in"  the  effect,  and  compels  it  to  abstract 
the  enclosed  part  from  the  rest  of  the  environment;  and,  last  but  not  least,  seclusion  gives 
privacy. 

The  good  old  continental  practice  of  making  a  closed-in  estate  a  little  world  of  one's 
own  is  set  at  naught  by  the  average  builder.  The  absence  of  fences  and  tree-screens  throws 
what  should  be  the  owner's  exclusive  domain  open  to  public  invasion,  and  his  neighbor's 
business  becomes  as  important  as  his  own.  This  is  particularly  true  of  the  suburban  "lot," 
a  poor  little  beast,  bestraddled  by  a  good,  healthy  house,  the  tendency  of  which  to  reach 
out  is  nipped  by  circumstances  which  compel  it  to  pull  in  both  knees  and  elbows  to  escape 
its  neighbors.  This  seclusion  is  especially  desirable  in  the  flower-gardens  proper,  where 
I  like  to  fancy  the  dames  of  old  spending  part  of  their  day's  time  with  their  most  cherished 
flowers  enjoying  them,  petting  them,  as  it  were,  to  make  them  respond  to  their  wishes. 
This  part  of  the  estate  is,  in  the  open  air,  what  the  drawing-room  is  in  the  house,  and 
as  no  one  would  like  to  have  outsiders  look  into  the  living  part  of  the  residence,  in  the 
same  way  no  one  should  want  outsiders  to  look  into  the  living  part  of  the  garden. 

Many  a  Tuscan  villa  had  a  small  flower-garden,  well  screened  by  high  walls,  and 


4o  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

immediately  accessible  by  a  side  entrance  of  the  house.  Here  the  lady's  favorite  flowers 
were  cultivated,  mainly  by  herself  for  her  own  pleasure;  a  pergola  or  "berceau"  was 
provided  to  shade  a  comfortable  place  wherein  to  lounge  and  read  and  escape  the  oppres- 
sion of  indoor  air  during  the  hot  season.  In  my  opinion,  every  villa  garden  should  have 
such  a  flower-garden  as  something  apart  from,  though  contiguous  to,  the  residence,  not 
completely  shadeless  (as  most  flower-gardens  are  built  today),  but  close  to  the  villa,  even 
at  the  expense  of  the  kitchen-yard  or  the  drying-ground,  which,  for  the  convenience  of 
the  servants,  and  with  very  little  artistic  sense,  are  often  located  where  they  become  a 
nuisance  and  a  real  blot  in  the  garden. 

A  characteristic  of  almost  all  Tuscan  villa  gardens  is  that  they  are  small;  the  main 
part  of  the  estate  connected  with  the  residence  being  the  "podere"  or  farm,  is  devoted 
entirely  to  the  cultivation  of  grape  vines  and  olives,  in  which  Tuscan  gentlemen  took 
great  interest.  Whenever  the  grounds  devoted  to  the  villa  garden  were  more  than  three 
to  five  acres,  a  part  of  them  was  treated  as  a  park,  and  the  fundamental  principle  governing 
their  treatment  consisted  in  selecting  the  most  prominent  points  of  the  estate  whereon 
to  build  something  in  the  nature  of  a  feature  for  the  park  grounds.  Vistas,  berceaux, 
chapels,  kiosks,  water-basins,  etc.,  constituted  such  features,  and  the  roads  and  paths, 
often  completely  shaded,  were  made  to  lead  to  these  points.  The  Boboli  gardens,  which 
furnish,  perhaps,  the  best  illustration  of  this  point,  are  too  well  known  to  you  to  require 
more  than  passing  mention.  A  villa  garden,  which  I  fancy  is  not  known  at  all,  is  the  Villa 
La  Fortezza,  of  which  I  am  sorry  to  possess  only  a  few  photographs.  They  are,  however, 
sufficient  to  show  the  features  of  the  estate,  which  form  an  original  curiosity,  for  every- 
one of  them  represents  a  monument  to  the  memory  of  illustrious  Tuscan  men — one  is 
a  "pantheon." 

A  few  words  will  suffice  in  reference  to  the  Roman  gardens.  They  have  been  so  thoroughly 
studied,  photographed,  and  widely  published  that  it  would  be  superfluous  to  speak  of 
Villa  Lante,  or  the  Vatican  Gardens,  Villa  d'Este,  Borghese,  Falconieri,  and  others.  I 
desire  only  to  say  that  they  are  the  most  grandiose  gardens  in  Italy,  the  most  imposing 
but  not  the  most  elaborate.  The  reason  for  their  "magnificence"  is  that  Roman  people 
are  "magnificent" — they  view  life  on  a  vaster  scale  and  with  a  broader  mind  than  the 
rest  of  mortals.  The  grandeur  of  the  Roman  Empire,  so  far  as  architecture  could  express 
it,  is  still  before  the  eyes  of  the  people  of  every  class,  and  their  eye  is  used  to  an  environ- 
ment which  does  not  allow  of  petty  things.  In  a  Roman  garden  one  feels  a  sense  of  awe, 
feels  his  very  soul  lifted  to  higher  spheres  in  the  same  way  as  when  one  finds  himself  under 
the  superb  arcades  of  St.  Peter's,  or  among  the  ruins  of  the  Colosseum. 

The  farther  south  one  proceeds  in  Italy,  and  about  in  proportion  with  the  increase 
of  heat,  one  finds  a  gradual  increase  of  fancy  and  imagination  in  every  branch  of  art.  The 
Neapolitan  nature  is  brilliant,  gay,  fond  of  display,  of  ornaments,  or  what  the  French, 
with  an  untranslatable  word,  call  "la  blague."  Many  centuries  of  Spanish  dominion  have 
but  increased  a  hundred-fold  this  natural  tendency.  The  result  of  this  fact  in  architecture 
is  a  tendency  to  depart  from  the  pure  and  simple  lines,  and  to  let  the  pencil  of  the  artist 
run  more  wildly  over  the  drawing-board.  I  must  hasten  to  say,  however,  that  the  splendid 
models  of  architecture  left  all  over  the  ex-kingdom  of  the  Two  Sicilies  by  the  many  Greek 
settlements  have  done  much  toward  keeping  the  fervid  native  imagination  within 
reasonable  bounds. 

To  show  more  clearly  this  idea,  I  beg  to  illustrate  it  with  a  somewhat  curious  example, 


Villa  d'Este,  T 


The  Grandeur  and  Austerity  of    Roman  Design 


OF   LANDSCAPE   ARCHITECTS  41 

which  I  select  almost  as  a  connecting  link  between  the  little  I  have  to  say  of  southern 
gardens  and  the  main  part  of  this  paper,  which  is  chiefly  devoted  to  Tuscan  gardens.  Almost 
at  the  entrance  of  the  village  of  Collodi,  near  Pescia,  on  the  southern  slope  of  a  very  pictur- 
esque and  wood-covered  hill,  was  built,  during  the  early  part  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
the  villa  of  the  Marquis  Garzoni.  The  palace  is  a  very  plain  structure  about  200  feet  long, 
but  in  extremely  good  taste  in  its  interior  construction  and  decoration,  and  especially 
famous  for  a  large  collection  of  antique  furniture.  The  garden  was  built  a  long  time  after- 
ward by  a  gentleman  of  Lucca,  by  the  name  of  Ottaviano  Diodati,  who  devoted  his  energies 
to  the  art  of  architecture  as  a  pastime.  This  gentleman  spent  a  good  part  of  his  life  at 
the  court  of  Naples,  and  was  at  one  time  engaged  in  preparing  for  Charles  Third,  King 
of  the  Two  Sicilies,  a  drawing  for  the  royal  palace  at  Caserta,  which,  the  chronicles  say, 
was  never  built  for  lack  of  funds!  At  any  rate,  Diodati  had,  in  Naples,  ample  time 
and  opportunity  to  acquire  a  taste  for  exaggeration,  as  the  illustrations,  of  the  Villa 
Garzoni,  will  demonstrate  to  anyone  who  is  familiar  with  such  simple  Tuscan  villas 
as  Gamberaia,  or  Petraia,  or  Castello.  The  photographs  flatten  considerably  the 
perspective,  and,  while  this  tends  to  emphasize  the  point  I  wish  to  bring  out,  I  must 
add  that  on  the  ground  the  work  appears  more  harmonious,  especially  in  the  central 
part.  The  garden  has  the  general  form  of  an  amphitheatre  with  a  double  row  of  ter- 
races about  300  feet  long  and  25  feet  wide.  The  center  is  occupied  by  three  stately 
flights  of  double  staircases  with  a  grotto  between  each  pair.  The  lower  part  of  the  garden 
is  divided  into  two  equal  parts  of  the  same  length  as  the  terraces,  and  about  150  feet  wide, 
forming  two  levels.  One  slopes  gently  from  the  terraces  and  is  covered  with  evergreens 
and  beds  with  the  typical  designs  of  the  renaissance  style;  the  other  is  flat  and  almost 
entirely  devoted  to  flowers.  Two  fountains  on  this  lower  part  of  the  garden,  together 
with  some  vases  and  statues,  break  the  monotony  of  the  ground  design.  Curious  (and 
made  evidently  at  a  much  later  date)  is  the  topiary  work  along  the  hedges  that  bound 
three  sides  of  the  garden.  From  the  densest  part  of  the  wood,  overhanging  the  amphi- 
theatre and  forming  the  center  of  the  design,  a  large  cascade  is  built  in  the  form  of  a  stair- 
case. Water  pours  from  the  bugle  of  a  huge  statue  representing  "Fame"  about  to  take 
her  flight  through  space,  placed  at  the  very  top  and  blowing  her  bugle.  Does  this  not 
remind  one  (though,  of  course,  on  a  much  smaller  scale)  of  the  exaggerated 
conception  of  the  cascade  of  the  royal  gardens  at  Caserta?  The  two  have  probably  no 
relation  to  each  other,  but,  in  my  opinion,  the  Garzoni  cascade,  fantastic  and  attractive 
as  it  is,  would  probably  not  have  found  its  way  through  the  vine-clad  hills  of  Tuscany  had 
not  the  architect  lived  and  worked  in  the  excitable  land  of  Vesuvius. 

There  are  as  many  different  Italian  gardens  in  my  country  as  there  have  been  artists; 
they  are  so  different  that  it  is  far  easier  to  find  similarity  in  details  than  in  general  con- 
ception. I  hope  I  have  made  clear  the  point  that  each  architectural  type  of  garden 
in  Italy  is  characteristic  only  of  one  section  of  the  country,  and  of  the  artistic  inclinations 
of  its  people. 

As  a  conclusion,  therefore,  I  would  say  that  rather  than  copy  them  as  a  whole  or  in 
detail,  we  should  draw  a  lesson  from  them — an  inspiration.  Before  engaging  in  a  large 
landscape  construction,  the  architect  should  make  himself  thoroughly  familiar  with  the 
country  at  large  where  the  estate  lies,  and  with  the  estate  in  particular;  he  should  engage 
himself  in  that  work  and  in  that  work  alone,  giving  to  it  all  his  best  intelligence,  his  sen- 
timent, and  his  energies;  trying  to  conceive  something  of  his  own,  rather  than  copying 


42  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

or  patching-up  copied  details;  believing  that  an  inspiration  will  readily  come  to  him  who 
stops  thinking  "business"  and  thinks  "art;"  and  finally  getting  acquainted,  to  the  best 
of  his  abilities,  with  the  client  so  as  to  study  his  character,  inclinations,  and  needs. 

Miss  Jones:  Terraces  are  not  an  essential  feature  of  Italian  gardens,  as  they  were  always  made  to 
fit  the  conditions.  People  copy  details,  not  the  grand  idea,  and  think  they  have  a  garden.  The  Italian 
design  is  homogeneous;  we  are  apt  to  go  to  extremes  in  one  detail.  Seclusion  is  typical  of  Italian  gardens. 
In  English  gardens  the  flowers  are  the  important  thing;  in  Italian,  the  layout.  The  lemon  tree  can  be  used 
there  outdoors  from  May  to  October. 

Mr.  Dawson  spoke  of  the  possibilities  of  seclusion  in  the  garden  (which  may  be  considered  as  part 
of  the  house),  and  of  water  in  Italian  gardens,  used  to  the  utmost,  and  the  beauty  attained  by  the  free 
use  of  walls  at  different  levels. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Olmsted  does  not  approve  of  the  name,  "Italian  Garden,"  in  America;  would  call  it  "Formal 
Garden." 

Mr.  Vaux:  The  need  for  the  formal  garden  is  so  universal  in  America  that  the  near  future  is  going 
to  see  a  great  demand  for  artistic  designs. 

Mr.  Gallagher  contrasted  the  lack  of  views  to  be  had  from  Italian  houses,  with  the  American  house 
set  on  a  hill,  getting  the  view  and  also  more  air  in  summer. 

Mr.  Hoth:   Men  build  gardens  because  others  have  built  them.    Let  us  develop  a  garden  of  our  own. 

Miss  BuIIard  writes:  "I  would  particularly  endorse  what  is  said  of  the  seclusion  of  the  garden,  for  I 
have  long  felt  that  much  of  the  audacity  of  our  young  American  public  is  due  to  the  frightful  publicity 
of  the  daily  life,  in  which  the  thought  of  any  sort  of  seclusion  is  conspicuously  absent." 


THE   BOSTON   PARK    SYSTEM 

By    JOHN    C.    OLMSTED 

(Meeiine  of  July  7.  1905) 

AT  this,  the  first  summer  meeting  of  the  American  Society  of  Landscape  Archi- 
J-\  tects,  it  seems  appropriate  that  considerable  attention  should  be  given  to  the 
parks  of  this  city.  Because  I  had  a  more  or  less  responsible  share  in,  and  at  all 
times  took  part  in  the  designing  of  them,  it  has  fallen  to  me  to  tell  you,  before  we  visit 
the  parks  together,  some  points  of  design  which  may  aid  you  somewhat  toward  under- 
standing what  you  will  see  tomorrow.  I  shall  avoid,  in  the  main,  statistical  and  other 
information  which  you  can  read  in  the  reports  and  other  printed  matter. 

THE    COMMON 

The  Common — the  pride  of  patriotic  Bostonians — is  part  of  a  farm  bought  of  William 
Blackstone,  the  first  settler  who  bought  of  the  Indians,  by  the  "Town  of  Boston,"  in  1634. 
The  Town,  thereupon,  reserved  from  sale  substantially  the  present  Common  for  a  public 
cow-pasture  and  training-field  for  the  militia.  Charles  Street  was  laid  out  by  description 
in  a  vote  of  the  Town  in  1694,  as  was  also  an  extension  of  Boylston  Street  westward  to 
the  channel.  In  1830  only  was  the  pasturing  of  cows  upon  the  Common  stopped.  There 
had,  however,  long  been  a  charge  of  two  dollars  for  the  privilege. 

THE    PUBLIC   GARDEN 

What  is  now  the  Public  Garden  was  originally  a  part  of  the  Common,  but  it  was 
cut  off  by  the  vote  defining  Charles  Street,  passed  in  1694.    This  vote  seemed  to  have 


INSERT  FOLDOUT  HERE 


OF  LANDSCAPE   ARCHITECTS  43 

been  intended  to  define  and  limit  the  Common  proper,  and  to  leave  the  area  west  of  Charles 
Street  to  be  treated  simply  as  a  piece  of  real  estate  to  be  sold  off  from  time  to  time,  as 
land  south  of  Boylston  Street  had  been,  and  continued  to  be,  sold.  At  any  rate,  the  same 
vote  authorized  the  selectmen  to  sell,  and  they  did  sell,  land  west  of  Charles  Street,  begin- 
ning 500  feet  south  of  Beacon  Street,  for  rope-walks,  which  it  was  desired  to  get  located 
out  of  the  built-up  part  of  the  Town,  as  they  were  dangerous  because  of  fire. 

However,  the  land  where  these  rope-walks  stood  was  purchased  back  by  the  Town 
in  1824.  In  1856  an  agreement  was  entered  into  between  the  Commonwealth,  the  City, 
and  the  Boston  &  Roxbury  Mill  Corporation,  by  which  Arlington  Street  was  defined 
and  some  strips  of  land  conveyed  to  the  City  for  the  purpose  of  extending  what  is  now 
the  Public  Garden  westward  to  Arlington  Street  and  northward  to  Beacon  Street.  At 
that  time  there  was  a  little  upland  in  what  is  now  the  Public  Garden,  but  it  was  mostly 
beach  and  salt  marsh  and  mud  flat  exposed  at  low  water. 

THE    BACK    BAY 

The  district  of  Boston  known  from  early  days  as  the  Back  Bay,  extending  from  the 
Common  on  the  east  to  Brookline,  and  from  Charles  River  on  the  north  to  the  neck  south 
of  the  Boston  and  Providence  Railroad,  was  formerly  salt-marsh  and  mud-flats  broken 
here  and  there  by  winding  tidal  channels.  Before  steam  engines  were  much  used,  and 
before  coal  became  cheap,  there  was  a  strong  movement  for  the  utilization  of  any  con- 
venient water-power.  During  this  movement  the  Boston  &  Roxbury  Mill  Corporation 
acquired  by  law  the  right  to  use  the  Back  Bay  for  tidal  water-power.  In  1821  a  causeway 
was  completed  along  the  south  margin  of  Charles  River  from  the  corner  of  Beacon  and 
Charles  Streets,  where  the  upland  ended,  westerly  to  Brookline.  This  causeway,  being 
known  as  the  Mill  Dam  and  now  as  Beacon  Street,  was  made  wide  enough  for  a  toll  road, 
which  not  only  became  at  once  an  important  thoroughfare  to  Brookline,  Brighton,  and 
other  suburban  towns,  but,  as  it  began  at  the  most  fashionable  residence  district  of  Boston 
— Beacon  Hill — it  was  for  many  years  the  main  pleasure  drive  of  the  city.  Its  usefulness 
and  prestige  for  this  purpose  has  been  such  that  no  street  railway  tracks  have  ever  been 
permitted  in  this  extension  of  Beacon  Street  east  of  Massachusetts  Avenue.  The  various 
salt-marshes  within  this  area  remained  private  property,  having  always  been  valued 
for  the  sake  of  the  salt-hay  crop.  Gradually,  with  the  growth  of  population  and  the  filling 
in  and  sale  of  lots  in  the  other  tidal  mill  ponds  and  shallow  margins  about  the  original 
city,  this  Back  Bay  district  became  valuable  enough  to  warrant  the  cost  of  filling.  The 
Commonwealth  undertook  the  work,  and  did  it  on  an  unusually  extensive  scale.  The 
simple  rectangular  street  system  was  presumably  devised  by  the  engineer  of  the  Harbor 
and  Land  Commission — a  State  Board. 

COMMONWEALTH    AVENUE 

It  is  said  that  the  late  Arthur  Gilman,  architect  of  the  City  Hall,  suggested  Common- 
wealth Avenue  from  the  Public  Garden  to  Massachusetts  Avenue  as  the  central  feature 
of  the  new  residential  district.  It  is  250  feet  wide  between  house  fronts,  and  the  central 
lawns  are  100  feet  wide,  including  a  central  promenade  in  which  at  intervals  are  the  fol- 
lowing monuments:     Statue  of  Alexander  Hamilton,   by  William   Rimmer;  of  General 


44  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

Stephen  Glover,  by  Martin  Milmore;  of  William  Lloyd  Garrison,  by  Olin  L.  Warner. 
Unfortunately  this  section  of  Commonwealth  Avenue  is  lacking  in  suitable  terminal 
features,  doubtless  because  of  the  excessive  utilitarianism  of  the  commissioners  and 
engineer  of  the  Commonwealth. 

When  the  next  section  of  the  Back  Bay  district  west  of  Massachusetts  Avenue  came 
to  be  filled,  the  engineer  in  charge,  for  utilitarian  reasons — to  avoid  a  very  long  diagonal 
bridge  over  the  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad,  and  to  afford  regular  blocks  of  land  parallel 
with  the  railroad — diverted  Commonwealth  Avenue  and  again  ignored  the  opportunity 
to  create  a  dignified  feature,  such  as  a  "public  square"  or  circle,  which  would  have  afforded 
a  suitable  site  for  a  great  monument  or  public  building  facing  east  toward  the  older 
portion  of  Commonwealth  Avenue. 

THE   NEW    PARK    MOVEMENT 

Stimulated,  no  doubt,  by  the  great  success  of  Central  Park  in  New  York  City,  and 
of  Prospect  Park  in  Brooklyn,  and  other  park  projects  in  other  cities  of  the  country,  and 
by  the  land-boom  which  culminated  in  1873,  a  petition  was  widely  circulated  and  signed 
by  citizens  during  1869  in  favor  of  a  new  public  park.  As  a  result  of  this  petition  and 
of  the  speeches  and  newspaper  articles,  a  joint  special  committee  of  the  City  Council 
on  a  New  Public  Park  was  appointed.  After  various  public  hearings,  this  committee 
reported  to  the  City  Council,  December  20,  1869.  The  report  was  adopted,  and  the  Mayor 
presented  to  the  Legislature  a  draft  of  a  bill  to  establish  a  Park  Commission.  The  bill 
as  amended  was  passed,  but  required  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the  people  accepting  it.  The 
subject  of  parks  had  not,  however,  been  sufficiently  agitated,  and  conservatism  and  the 
usual  dread  of  increased  taxation,  aided,  no  doubt,  by  a  democratic  dislike  for  a  provision 
of  the  bill  which  required  part  of  the  members  of  the  Board  to  be  appointed  by  the  Governor, 
resulted  in  the  failure  of  the  bill  to  secure  the  requisite  two-thirds  vote  in  the  election 
of  1870. 

After  various  other  efforts,  a  different  Park  Commission  Act  was  finally  passed  and 
accepted  by  popular  vote  in  1875.  This  act,  however,  left  the  supplying  of  funds  to  the 
City  Council,  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote  of  each  chamber.  This  practically  blocked 
further  progress  until  1877,  when,  after  much  agitation,  the  City  Council,  fairly  driven 
by  public  opinion  and  by  the  even  more  effective  lobbying  of  land-owners  and  speculators, 
who  expected  to  derive  a  profit  thereby,  finally  authorized  the  laying  out  of  a  park  in 
the  unimproved  portion  of  the  Back  Bay,  and  provided,  by  borrowing,  the  funds  necessary 
to  pay  for  the  land.    This  was  the  Back  Bay  Park,  later  called  the  Fens. 

THE   BOSTON    PARK    SYSTEM 

The  old  Common  and  the  newer  Public  Garden,  together  with  numerous  public  squares 
which  it  was  the  custom  for  the  land-owners  to  dedicate  when  they  subdivided  their  lands 
into  streets  and  lots,  had  been  managed  by  a  joint  committee  of  the  City  Council.  Not- 
withstanding the  appointment  of  a  Park  Commission  in  1875,  tms  arrangement  still  con- 
tinues. It  is  desirable  for  the  practical  reason  that  it  keeps  the  later  park  system  out 
of  politics. 

Most  of  the  parks  and  parkways  of  Boston  form  a  connected  system.   One  can  drive, 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  45 

without  going  out  of  lands  controlled  by  the  Park  Commission,  from  the  Public  Garden, 
through  Commonwealth  Avenue,  the  Fens,  Riverway,  Olmsted  Park  (Arborway, 
Arnold  Arboretum),  Franklin  Park,  Columbia  Road,  and  Strandway,  to  Marine  Park. 
Blue  Hill  Avenue  has  been  widened  to  a  double  roadway  Boulevard  from  Franklin 
Park  to  Mattapan,  where  it  connects  with  a  boulevard  of  the  Metropolitan  Park 
Commission  extending  to  the  Blue  Hills  Reservation.  From  the  Riverway,  a  park- 
way drive  branches  off  to  Audubon  Circle,  whence  one  may  drive  in  a  park- 
way 160  feet  wide  (Beacon  Street)  to  Chestnut  Hill  Reservoir,  or  by  Commonwealth 
Avenue,  200  feet  wide,  to  the  same  point,  and  thence  by  Newton  Boulevard,  120  feet 
wide,  to  the  Charles  River  at  Auburndale.  Land  was  secured  years  ago,  but  has  not  yet 
been  developed,  for  a  parkway  with  wide,  picturesque  margins  from  Arnold  Arboretum 
to  Stony  Brook  Reservation.  It  connects  with  the  parkway  system  of  the  Metropolitan 
Park  Commission. 

THE   FENS 

The  shape  of  the  Fens  can  only  be  defined  briefly  as  shapeless.  It  has  an  irregular 
central  body  averaging  about  1,000  feet  wide,  with  a  length,  from  Boylston  Bridge  to 
Mrs.  John  L.  Gardner's  "Fenway  Place,"  of  about  3,500  feet.  From  this  body  project 
six  arms.  Northward  of  Boylston  Bridge  is  the  arm  called  Charlesgate.  This  was  laid 
out  as  a  so-called  "entrance"  to  the  Park.  It  originally  extended,  for  this  reason,  north- 
ward only  to  Beacon  Street;  but,  when  the  waterway  plan  was  adopted,  it  was  extended 
a  block  further  north  to  Charles  River.  It  is  now  about  1,500  feet  long.  Its  width  was 
arbitrarily  established  at  300  feet,  but  as  the  land-owners  neglected  to  stipulate  for  a 
street  within  this  area,  the  Park  Commission  later  secured  a  strip  50  feet  wide  on  each 
side  for  streets,  on  condition  of  completely  improving  them  at  the  expense  of  the  park 
fund.  The  other  entrances  are  Boylston  Entrance,  30  feet  wide,  to  Massachusetts  Avenue; 
Westland  Entrance,  300  feet  wide,  to  Parker  Street;  Huntington  Entrance,  200  feet  wide, 
to  Huntington  Avenue;  Parker  Hill  Entrance,  from  300  to  500  feet  wide,  to  Huntington 
Avenue;  and  Longwood  Entrance,  originally  200  feet  wide,  but,  after  the  waterway  plan 
was  adopted,  increased  to  350  feet  wide. 

The  peculiar  shape  of  the  Fens  and  its  entrances  was  due  mainly  to  the  limitations 
of  cost  for  land  which  the  opponents  of  the  project  in  the  City  Council  succeeded  in  fasten- 
ing upon  the  ordinance  authorizing  the  park.  The  limit  of  price  of  ten  cents  per 
square  foot  for  the  land  was  stipulated.  It  is  probable  that  some  of  those  who  voted 
for  this  limitation  fully  believed  that  it  would  indirectly  kill  the  whole  scheme,  thus  saving 
the  city  much  money.  Not  only  did  it  not  save  money,  but  it  resulted  in  a  very  great 
increase  in  the  cost  of  construction  in  proportion  to  area.  The  original  area  of  this  park 
was  about  one  hundred  acres.  This,  at  ten  cents  per  square  foot,  made  the  cost  of  land, 
$435,000,  or  $4,356  per  acre.  But  the  cost  for  construction  has  been  over  $18,500  per 
acre,  a  cost  probably  without  precedent  in  the  history  of  park  making.  Franklin  Park, 
which  is  well  supplied  with  stone  bridges,  buildings  and  other  expensive  structures,  cost 
only  S4,6oo  per  acre  for  construction.  The  cost  of  filling  the  park  in  the  Back  Bay,  had 
it  been  located  on  salt  marshes  not  complicated  by  the  channels  of  Stony  Brook  and  Muddy 
River,  would  probably  not  have  been  more  than  $4,000  per  acre;  so  it  is  safe  to  say  that 
the  necessity  forced  upon  the  Park  Commission,  of  locating  and  shaping  the  park  to  suit 
the  demand  of  the  land-owners,  even  allowing  for  a  greater  price  for  salt  marshes  else- 


46  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

where  but  near-by,  cost  the  city,  so  far  as  the  park  is  concerned,  over  a  million  dollars 
more  than  it  would  if  the  Park  Commission  had  been  left  free  to  act  on  its  own  judgment. 
It  is  true  the  city  in  that  case  would  have  had  to  construct  the  Stony  Brook  flood-channel, 
now  nearing  completion,  sooner  than  it  did.  Even  if  this  park  had  to  be  located,  as  it 
was,  where  the  deepest  and  widest  channels  intersected  the  salt  marshes,  and  even  if  it 
had  to  be  improved  in  such  a  way  that  the  floods  of  Stony  Brook  could  be  taken  care 
of  in  and  through  it,  the  park  might  have  been  twice  as  large,  yet  less  expensive,  if  the 
shape  had  been  a  rectangle,  with  its  length,  say,  three  times  its  width.  The  present 
periphery  of  the  park  and  its  entrances  is  nearly  three  miles.  If  the  park  had  been  a  rec- 
tangle half  a  mile  wide  and  one  mile  long,  its  boundary  drives  would  have  been  only  a 
trifle  longer  than  they  now  are,  yet  the  park,  including  border  streets,  would  have  had 
an  area  of  320  acres,  instead  of  only  115  acres  as  at  present.  The  enormous  advantages 
of  this  increase  of  205  acres  in  size  may  be  gathered  from  the  statement  that  it  would 
have  afforded  space  for  a  play-field  of  nearly  that  area,  a  most  important  feature  in  which 
the  present  park  is  necessarily  entirely  lacking.  Or,  as  an  alternative,  this  park,  if  limited 
to  its  present  area  (115  acres),  might  have  been  a  rectangle  as  long  as  the  present  main 
body  of  the  park  (3,500  feet),  and  430  feet  wider  than  at  present;  yet,  in  that  case,  the 
boundary  street  would  have  had  a  total  length  of  one  and  three-quarters  miles  instead 
of  two  and  seven-eighths  miles.  As  by  far  the  greater  part  of  the  expense  of  construction 
of  this  park  has  been  its  borders,  it  is  obvious  that  a  park  having  the  same  area  could  have 
been  provided  for  about  two-thirds  of  the  actual  cost  of  construction.  The  saving,  amount- 
ing to  some  $700,000,  might  have  been  put  into  one  or  more  great  play-fields. 

The  acquirement  of  the  land  for  the  Fens  was  begun  in  1877,  and  in  deference  to 
local  political  opinion  a  competition  for  plans  was  held.  An  outsider,  Mr.  Frederick 
Law  Olmsted,  was  invited  to  act  as  judge  of  the  competition,  after  having  refused  to 
submit  a  plan  in  competition;  but  the  proposed  duty  did  not  appeal  to  him  and  he  declined. 
After  the  competition  had  taken  place,  and  after  the  prize  had  been  awarded,  the  same 
New  York  landscape  architect  was  employed  to  review  the  problem  and  give  some  general 
advice.  One  of  the  first  things  he  did  was  to  have  a  thorough  consultation  with  the  City 
Engineer.  He  thus  discovered,  what  the  competitors  who  submitted  plans  had  apparently 
not  thought  to  ascertain,  that  there  was  a  very  serious  problem  as  to  what  should  be  done 
with  the  floods  of  the  Stony  Brook.  This  brook  ran  through  the  low  part  of  Roxbury  at  such 
a  low  level  that  the  water  in  it  was  set  back  by  the  tides.  As  usually  happens,  the  brook 
had  been  cribbed  and  confined  by  private  land-owners  and  careless  street-builders,  and 
the  buildings  on  adjoining  lands  had  been  set  so  low  that  cellars  were  frequently  flooded, 
especially  in  the  spring,  and  at  intervals  of  a  few  years  these  floods  occurring  coincidently 
with  extra-high  tides  when  the  sea-water  is  driven  into  the  harbor  by  easterly  gales,  flooded 
not  only  cellars  but  streets,  deep  enough  for  boating.  The  radical  remedy  since  adopted 
— namely,  the  construction  of  a  more  direct  underground  channel  as  big  as  a  double  track 
subway  tunnel — was  at  that  time  deemed  utterly  out  of  the  question  owing  to  the  cost, 
which  was  estimated  at  several  million  dollars.  The  City  Engineer's  idea  was  that  the 
new  park  should  be  treated  frankly  as  a  storage  basin,  the  water  in  it  being  ordinarily 
kept  salt  and  the  shores  steeply  sloped  and  pitched  with  large  stones  in  the  manner  usual 
for  reservoirs.  By  tide-gates  the  water-surface  could  be  kept  so  low  that  the  water  of 
Stony  Brook  could  be  received  and  stored  during  high  tide  at  a  low-enough  level  to  prevent 
much  of  the  damage  to  the  low  portion  of  Roxbury.    This  simple  but  ugly  improvement 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  47 

was,  of  course,  felt  to  be  extremely  objectionable  by  the  New  York  landscape  architect, 
and  he  set  himself  the  problem  of  devising  some  modification  of  it  which,  while  answering 
fairly  well  the  engineering  requirements  of  the  case,  would  appear  natural  and  beautiful. 
A  basin  at  a  low  elevation  was  taken  for  granted.  It  was  assumed,  too,  that  some  sacrifice 
of  area  could  be  made  for  the  sake  of  securing  irregular  shores  and  varying  slopes  such 
as  would  look  natural  and  agreeable.  The  difficulty  was  to  protect  these  banks  from 
wash  when  they  were  partly  submerged  by  floods  and  when  violent  storms  would  create 
considerable  waves.  The  idea  was  then  adopted  of  dividing  the  basin  by  curving  across 
drives  (which  would  eventually  be  much  needed  by  the  dense  population  which  is  expected 
to  surround  the  park)  and  to  still  further  diversify  the  water-suface  by  small,  irregular 
islets.  As  a  still  further  deterrent  of  destructive  waves,  a  large  portion  of  the  surface 
was  planned  to  be  kept  in  salt  marsh-grass  but  at  a  level  two  feet  below  the  natural  level, 
which  is  everywhere  close  to  the  elevation  of  mean  high  water.  In  figures  the  existing 
salt  marsh  was  at  elevation  10.5,  and  it  was  to  be  lowered  to  elevation  8.5. 

The  City  Engineer,  after  this  scheme  had  been  pleasantly  explained  and  discussed, 
gave  it  his  approval,  in  spite  of  the  reduction  of  storage  capacity  of  storm-water  which 
it  involved;  and  the  Park  Commission,  impressed  by  the  ingenious  marriage  of  engineer- 
ing requirements  and  park  landscape  beauty,  employed  its  author  to  make  plans  for  carry- 
ing it  out.  The  preliminary  plans  were  presented  and  approved  in  1878,  and  published 
later  in  the  annual  report  for  that  year.  The  working  drawing  included  a  grading  plan 
with  one  foot  contours,  which  showed  every  irregularity  of  the  surface  desired  to  simulate 
a  natural  appearance,  and  which  was  implicitly  and  mechanically  followed  by  the  engineers 
of  the  City  Engineer's  office  in  setting  stakes  for  the  guidance  of  the  foremen  in  charge 
of  the  distributing  of  the  filling.  The  portion  of  Commonwealth  Avenue  from  Massachusetts 
Avenue  to  Brookline  Avenue  and  Beacon  Street  had  been  turned  over  to  the  Park  Com- 
mission for  improvement;  consequently  its  driveway  was  planned  with  long,  sweeping 
curves  to  harmonize  with  and  lead  into  the  Fenway.  The  two  driveways  of  Common- 
wealth Avenue  were  extended  on  curves  and  brought  together  with  one  driveway  at  Charles- 
gate,  thus  enabling  the  waterway  of  that  extension  of  the  Fens  to  be  crossed  by  a  single 
bridge  instead  of  two  bridges  or  one  bridge  200  feet  wide,  either  of  which  would  have 
greatly  diminished  the  landscape  value  of  the  waterway.  The  point  between  the  two 
driveways  has  been  used  for  an  ideal  statue  of  Leif  Ericson,  by  Miss  Anne  Whitney.  The 
curvilinear  driveway  west  of  Charlesgate  to  Brookline  Avenue,  designed  at  that  time 
and  completely  improved,  was  later  torn  up  by  direction  of  Mayor  Matthews  to  satisfy 
the  demands  of  land  speculators  owning  land  on  the  south  side  of  Commonwealth  Avenue, 
who  objected  to  having  the  main  driveway  swing  toward  the  north  side,  leaving  their 
land  on  a  narrower  and  less  direct  driveway.  The  change  greatly  diminished  the  lawn 
area  and  increased  the  area  of  ugly  macadam. 

The  bridge  over  the  waterway  at  Commonwealth  Avenue  had  to  be  kept  closely 
down  to  the  standard  elevation  of  the  city  streets  which  closely  adjoin  it;  but  the  main 
drive  thence  southward  had  to  rise  rapidly  to  the  elevation  required  for  a  bridge  over 
the  Boston  and  Albany  Railroad,  which,  to  gain  distance,  was  placed  on  the  westerly 
boundary  road  of  Charlesgate.  It  was  not  thought  worth  what  it  would  cost  to  carry 
the  easterly  boundary  road  over  this  railroad  by  a  bridge. 

Boylston  Bridge  was  designed  with  a  much  wider  and  higher  span  than  the  engineer- 
ing requirements  called  for,  especially  in  order  to  afford  a  particularly  attractive  view 


48  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

of  the  Fens  landscape  southward  of  it  through  the  arch  from  the  important  viewpoint 
on  Commonwealth  Avenue  Bridge.  Care  was  taken  to  design  the  railroad  bridge  (which, 
of  course,  had  to  be  paid  for  out  of  the  park  fund)  without  side  parapets  or  fences.  With 
the  usual  obtuseness  as  to  the  beauties  of  landscape,  the  beautiful  view  has  been  blocked 
by  high  board  fences.  It  only  remains  now  to  paint  staring  advertising  signs  on  these 
fences  to  complete  the  offensive  obtrusion.  It  is  to  be  hoped  the  Park  Commission  will 
some  day  substitute  a  woven  wire  fence  on  the  south  side  (none  is  needed  on  the  north 
side)  of  this  railroad. 

Agassiz  Road,  which  crosses  the  main  basin  of  the  park,  was  dipped  down  to  the 
lowest  possible  elevation  to  keep  open  the  view  through  the  length  of  the  park.  The  Fen- 
way, which  is  the  main  drive,  being  wide  and  accompanied  by  a  bridle  path,  was  made 
to  swing  to  the  east  boundary  and  follow  it,  in  spite  of  its  greater  length,  because  the 
borings  in  the  salt  marsh  and  mud  flats  showed  hard  bottom  to  be  very  much  deeper 
down  along  the  west  side  of  the  park  than  the  east  side.  Incidentally  there  are  more 
numerous  and  more  important  entrances  on  this  east  or  cityward  side.  The  waterway 
was  made  crooked  to  simulate  the  windings  natural  for  a  channel  through  a  salt  marsh, 
and  while  the  boundaries  prevented  the  retention  of  the  original  channel,  part  of  them 
were  availed  of.  As  is  usual  in  park  designing  in  the  naturalistic  style,  more  variety 
of  scenery  was  compressed  into  the  design  than  would  ordinarily  be  found  in  nature. 

Agassiz  Bridge  was  designed  with  five  small  arches,  so  as  to  gain  headroom  by  dimin- 
ishing the  thickness  of  the  arch  in  order  to  permit  canoeing.  The  channels  being  narrow 
and  tortuous,  and  the  railroad  bridges  having  been  divided  into  three  spans,  likewise 
to  gain  headroom,  it  was  designed  to  limit  boating  to  canoes.  Five  arches  were  used  partly 
for  picturesque  effect,  but  partly  as  expressing  the  greater  accommodations  seemingly 
needed  for  the  waterway,  which  had  to  pass  the  floods  of  Stony  Brook  rapidly  during 
the  low  stages  of  the  tide.  Not  being  necessarily  an  imposing  mass  of  masonry  like  Boylston 
Bridge,  it  was  designed  in  an  ultra-picturesque  style,  almost  suggesting  the  interesting  effect 
of  a  partly  ruined,  but  still  standing  and  useful,  ancient  piece  of  comparatively  unskilled 
masonwork.  The  banks  about  it  were  planted,  for  the  sake  of  harmony  with  this  idea, 
as  widely  as  possible.  Such  art  motives  do  not  usually  occur  to  gardeners  nor,  if  they 
exist,  are  they  apt  to  be  appreciated,  and  one  may  therefore  expect  to  see  the  plantations 
on  these  slopes  gradually  transformed  to  tall,  bare-trunked  trees,  with  smooth,  tame 
turf  covering  the  ground  under  them,  if  indeed,  with  the  excessive  shade,  any  ground- 
cover  is  maintained. 

The  five-arch  bridge  at  Huntington  Entrance  was  designed  with  as  marked  formality 
as  Agassiz  Bridge  was  with  complete  informality.  The  reason  for  this  marked  contrast 
of  motives  arose  from  the  circumstances  of  the  case.  Huntington  Entrance  was  formal 
and  the  walks  under  and  the  foot  bridge  closely  associated  with  this  five-arch  bridge, 
and  the  greater  width  and  importance  of  the  drive  and  walks  and  bridle-path  tended 
to  artificialize  the  surroundings  and  called,  in  the  aggregate,  for  a  more  dignified  treatment. 
The  walks  under  this  bridge  were  introduced  in  order  to  afford  access  from  this  impor- 
tant entrance,  near  a  large  population  in  which  children  abound,  to  the  important  shore- 
path.  This  would  not  only  lessen  the  danger,  and  feeling  of  danger,  of  women  and  children, 
but  would  do  away  with  the  unpleasant  alertness  which  drivers  and  riders  have  to  exer- 
cise at  a  grade  crossing,  and  would,  especially,  enable  equestrians  to  "let  out"  their  horses 
freely  from  the  Agassiz  Road  crossing  to  the  Parker  Hill  Entrance.    A  foot  subway  was 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  49 

even  contemplated  at  this  latter  crossing.  It  is  always  exceedingly  desirable  to  have 
bridle-paths  with  long  stretches  from  grade  crossings,  so  cantering  can  be  safely 
indulged  in. 

The  Fenway  Bridge  and  the  facing  of  the  culvert  are  modest  pieces  of  boulder  masonry 
intended  to  be  almost  concealed  by  vines.  It  is  usually  suggestive  of  quaint  homeliness 
to  use  the  characteristic  materials  and  mechanicals  of  the  locality  in  which  a  structure 
is  built.  This  locality  is  covered  with  a  network  of  stone  walls  put  up  by  the  farmers 
with  the  boulders  which  encumbered  their  fields;  hence  hereabouts  a  lowly  structure 
of  no  great  size  or  importance  may  well  be  built  of  boulders.  The  Fens  proper  end  at 
the  Fens  Bridge;  hence  its  name.  The  waterway  from  Fens  Bridge  to  the  culvert  at  Brook- 
line  Avenue,  although  supplied  like  the  Fens  with  salt  water  at  every  tide,  is  intended 
to  take  on  more  of  the  character  of  a  river  than  of  Fens  or  salt  marshes.  This  section 
was  originally  called  the  Longwood  Entrance.  As  the  design  developed,  its  name  was 
change  to  Riverway,  better  to  express  its  designed  character,  and  it  had  also  to  be  con- 
siderably widened. 

The  Parker  Hill  Entrance  at  the  time  the  land  was  taken,  and  before  the  final  designer 
was  employed,  was  intended  as  the  start  of  a  broad  parkway  to  the  top  of  Parker  Hill 
and  down  the  opposite  side  and  thence  to  Jamaica  Pond;  but  it  would  have  been  very 
steep,  and  the  comparatively  level  Riverway  affords  a  far  more  convenient  and 
pleasurable  drive.  A  plan  for  a  branch  parkway  to  the  top  of  Parker  Hill  was  actually 
studied.  It  was  desirable  to  afford  a  pleasure  drive  approach  to  this  fine  viewpoint,  but 
the  expense  for  land  and  construction  was  considered  prohibitive. 

THE    RIVERWAY 

The  idea  of  having  the  Riverway  and  the  Leverett  Pond  section  of  Olmsted  Park, 
instead  of  the  proposed  formal  boulevard  by  way  of  Parker  Hill,  originated  from  the 
creative  imagination  of  the  designer  of  the  Fens,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted.  The  idea  was 
based  on  the  general  principle  of  looking  for  every  available  opportunity  for  preserving, 
in  connection  with  park  work,  such  beautiful  elements  of  existing  scenery  as  can  be 
used  directly  or  by  adaptation.  Here  was  a  salt  creek  fringed  with  salt  marshes.  The 
boundary  between  the  City  of  Boston  and  the  Town  of  Brookline  followed  the  thread 
of  the  stream.  A  good  part  of  the  Boston  side  had  a  beautiful  tree-clad  bank  with  suburban 
residences  above  it.  Farther  south  it  was  marshy.  On  the  Brookline  side,  below  Aspin- 
wall  Avenue,  the  beautiful  valley  was  disfigured  by  the  railroad  with  the  usual  steep 
gravel  slope  covered  with  cinders  and  weeds,  and  fenced.  At  Longwood  Station  there 
was,  in  addition,  a  group  of  cheap  dwellings.  For  some  distance  north  of  Washington 
Street  the  cheapest  kind  of  dwellings  and  tenements  pressed  upon  and  practically  obliter- 
ated the  stream.  About  forty  houses  were  condemned  in  this  locality,  Most  of  these 
houses  were  unpainted  and  more  or  less  dilapidated.  The  citizens  who  occupied  them 
were  commonly  referred  to  at  town  meetings  and  elsewhere  as  "from  the  marsh."  Unless 
some  extensive  and  expensive  improvement  of  the  whole  valley  were  to  be  soon  made, 
it  was  seemingly  inevitable  that  this  squalid  and  unsanitary  occupation  of  it  would  cover 
all  parts  of  this  valley  and  discourage  good  occupation  of  the  neighborhood. 

The  idea  of  preserving  the  valley  and  making  it  a  feature  of  the  parkway  system  was 
accepted.    The  greatest  care  had  to  be  taken  to  adjust  the  boundary  on  the  Boston  side, 


50  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

which  was  also  the  line  of  the  main  drive,  between  the  trees  and  topographical  conditions 
on  the  one  hand  and  the  houses  and  demands  of  land-owners  on  the  other.  The  water- 
way was  changed  to  fresh  water,  being  supplied  by  abundant  springs  and  by  the  brook 
flowing  through  Brookline.  Various  bridges  were  introduced  where  necessary  or  desirable. 
The  preliminary  designs  for  these  were  prepared  by  the  landscape  architects  and  put 
in  proper  architectural  shape  by  Messrs.  Shepley,  Rutan  &  Coolidge,  and  the  City  Engi- 
neer's office,  except  the  great  Longwood  Bridge,  the  engineering  part  of  which  was  done 
by  Messrs.  French  &  Bryant,  of  Brookline.  The  exigencies  of  design  required  most  of 
the  old  creek  channel  to  be  filled  and  a  new  waterway  to  be  created.  A  border  mound 
was  raised  along  the  railroad  to  hide  it.  The  shores  of  the  waterway  were  everywhere 
filled  with  gravel,  to  hold  back  the  more  or  less  movable  mud.  As  in  the  case  of  the 
Fens,  every  portion  of  the  surface,  except  such  limited  areas  as  had  trees  growing  upon 
them,  were  regarded  according  to  carefully  studied  grading  plans. 

OLMSTED    PARK 

The  two  parks  originally  named  Leverett  Park  and  Jamaica  Park  were  combined 
and  named  Olmsted  Park  out  of  compliment  to  Frederick  Law  Olmsted,  after  he  retired 
owing  to  feeble  health.  This  park  comprises  an  unusual  variety  of  scenery,  including 
Jamaica  Pond,  Leverett  Pond,  and  other  ponds  and  pools,  two  wooded  knolls,  a  brook 
and  extensive  wooded  banks.  With  so  many  interesting  and  picturesque  scenes,  the  main 
effort  of  the  designers  was  to  preserve  and  develop  each  according  to  its  essential 
characteristics. 

The  site  of  Leverett  Pond  was  a  much  larger  cat-tail  swamp,  extending  on  the  west 
to  Pond  Avenue.  To  provide  an  attractive,  secluded  drive  and  walk  entirely  within 
the  park  on  this  side  of  the  swamp,  a  rather  wide  strip  had  to  be  filled  in.  The  mud  was 
excavated  8  feet  deep  and  gravel  dikes  filled  along  the  shore  where  mud  was  left,  to  prevent 
the  mud  from  sliding.  Where  land  was  cheaper,  east  of  Leverett  Pond,  the  bordering 
parkway  was  swung  well  up  the  hillside,  to  broaden  the  park.  Above  Leverett  Pond,  in 
addition  to  the  existing  brook  and  ponds,  a  number  of  pools  were  created,  in  the  expec- 
tation that  this  part  of  the  park  would  be  used  by  the  Natural  History  Society  for  a  Zoo- 
logical Garden  in  which  aquatic  birds  and  animals  would  be  the  principal  features.  As 
the  society  failed  to  raise  the  necessary  funds,  the  superfluous  pools  have  been  filled  up. 

Willow  Pond,  the  next  pond  above  Leverett  Pond,  was  relocated,  but  in  such  away 
that  it  looks  just  as  natural  as  before,  in  fact  more  so,  because  it  originally  had  a  narrow 
dam  with  a  row  of  willow  trees  growing  upon  it.  The  brook,  too,  existed,  yet  is  now 
quite  different.  It  is  not  quite  natural  in  appearance,  because  it  was  thought  preferable  to 
introduce  into  it  a  series  of  little  boulder  dams,  so  as  to  hold  back  enough  water  to  show. 

Ward's  Pond,  the  next  pond  below  Jamaica  Pond,  was  less  radically  changed.  A  walk 
was  filled  in  around  the  margin,  and  the  narrow  dam  was  widened,  so  as  to  disguise  its 
artificial  character.  All  these  and  other  changes  were  carefully  planned  on  paper  and 
carried  out  by  means  of  plans  and  specifications  by  a  contractor.  The  engineer  in  charge 
estimated  that  the  grading  would  have  cost  25  per  cent  more  if  done  by  the  regular  park 
day's-work  gangs. 

Jamaica  Pond  is  in  general  landscape  effect  what  it  was,  except  that  numerous  houses 
and  two  great  ranges  of  ice-houses  were  removed,  and  that  a  good  deal  of  the  margin 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  51 

had  to  be  filled  to  afford  room  for  a  shore  walk  below  the  steep  banks  where  most  visitors 
like  to  go.  The  only  house  originally  on  the  park  which  was  retained  was  Pinebanks. 
This  house  was  burned  out  after  the  land  was  acquired,  but  its  walls  were  so  well  built 
that  it  was  remodeled  for  a  public  shelter  and  for  the  business  offices  of  the  Park  System. 
It  would  have  been  a  satisfaction  to  have  preserved  also  the  home  of  Francis  Parkman, 
the  historian,  which  stood  on  the  opposite  side  of  Jamaica  Pond;  but  its  rooms  were  small, 
the  construction  was  of  wood  and  not  of  the  best,  so  it  was  decided  to  tear  it  down  and 
to  have  a  commemorative  monument  on  its  site.  An  interesting  fact  about  Jamaica  Pond 
is  that  it  is  so  deep  that  at  one  spot  its  bottom  is  actually  several  feet  below  sea-level, 

THE    ARBORWAY 

This  parkway  was  designed  to  connect  Jamaica  Pond,  the  Arnold  Arboretum,  and 
Franklin  Park.  The  land  where  it  had  to  run,  being  already  in  the  main  provided  with 
streets,  was  expensive,  so  it  was  limited  to  a  uniform  width  of  200  feet.  It  is  an  excellent 
example  of  what  seems  to  be  the  best  way  to  utilize  that  width  where  the  main  object 
is  to  provide  a  through  line  of  pleasure  driving,  walking,  and  riding  between  parks  where 
there  is  no  brook  or  other  interesting  natural  feature  to  be  preserved. 

The  private  property  is  given  frontage  on  side  roads  as  commodious  as  is  customary 
in  the  neighborhood.  There  is  a  wide  pleasure  drive  in  the  center  of  the  parkway,  and 
on  one  side  of  it  a  bridle-path  with  a  wide  promenade  on  the  other.  Both  bridle-path 
and  promenade  are  separated  from  the  roadways  on  each  side  of  them  by  tree-planting 
strips  of  liberal  width,  and  these  are  further  planted  with  shrubs  forming  a  mixed  and 
informal  hedge.  These  hedges  relieve  the  effect  of  flatness  and  extreme  simplicity  common 
in  similar  parkways,  besides  affording  much  enrichment  and  beauty  of  foliage,  flowers, 
fruit  and,  in  winter,  color  of  twigs.  Moreover,  they  conceal  the  ugly  macadam  strips 
to  a  considerable  extent,  while  permitting  views  to  and  from  the  houses  below  the  foliage 
of  the  trees. 

It  is  true  that  many  people,  especially  owners  of  abutting  real  estate,  prefer  that 
a  parkway  200  feet  wide  should  have  only  two  driveways  instead  of  three,  and  there  is 
much  to  be  said  in  favor  of  that  arrangement,  especially  if  abutting  private  land  is  restricted 
against  buildings  less  than  50  feet  or  so  from  the  parkway;  but  the  first  question  for  the 
Park  Commission  to  decide  is  whether  they  are  expending  the  money  the  parkway  cost 
primarily  for  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  using  the  parkway  to  get  pleasantly  from  one 
park  to  another;  that  is,  for  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest  number,  or,  primarily,  for 
the  benefit  of  abutting  real  estate.  If  the  land-owners  are  fully  compensated  for  the  land 
taken  for  the  parkway,  and  are  not  assessed  more  than  half  the  cost  of  the  parkway, 
justice  to  them  would  warrant,  in  most  cases,  denying  their  demand  for  limiting  the 
driveways  to  two  only;  but  if  land-owners  give  the  land  for  the  parkway  and  make  a 
considerable  contribution  voluntarily,  or  through  assessment,  toward  the  cost  of  con- 
struction, it  might  be  just  to  heed  their  preference  in  the  matter. 

Incidentally  it  may  be  mentioned  that  the  idea  of  laying  the  dust  and  preserving 
the  bond  by  means  of  crude  petroleum  was  tried  on  this  parkway  a  few  years  ago;  but, 
although  a  saving  in  expense  of  watering,  the  scheme  was  objected  to  because  the  oily 
clots  picked  up  more  or  less  on  wheels  and  horses'  feet  and  were  thrown  on  people's  clothes. 
The  experiment  has  not  been  repeated. 


52  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

ARNOLD    ARBORETUM 

The  greater  part  of  this  beautiful  park  belonged  to  Harvard  University,  having  been 
bequeathed  to  it  by  Mr.  Bussey.  It  was  named  after  Mr.  Arnold,  however,  because  he 
bequeathed  to  the  University  a  fund,  the  income  of  which  was  assigned  by  the  University 
for  a  professorship  of  Arboriculture  and  for  the  maintenance  of  the  Arboretum. 

When  the  landscape  architect  took  up  the  planning  of  the  Arboretum  on  behalf  of 
the  University,  it  was  of  course  understood  that,  so  far  as  was  compatible  with  its  scien- 
tific and  educational  purposes,  it  was  to  be  made  beautiful  and  to  be  adapted  for  enjoy- 
ment by  the  public,  and  the  parkway  had,  from  the  beginning,  been  intended  to  connect 
it  with  the  Boston  Park  System.  Study  soon  developed  the  fact  that  its  boundaries  were 
not  everywhere  suitable,  and  that  there  were  no  funds  available  for  drives  and  walks 
and  other  usual  park  improvements;  also  that  there  was  only  a  very  remote  prospect 
of  sufficient  funds  becoming  available  from  private  munificence.  It  was  then  suggested 
that  the  Park  Commission  should  add  the  needed  land,  should  build  and  maintain  drives 
and  walks,  water-supply,  drainage  and  other  construction,  and  police  and  maintain  them, 
leaving  the  University  to  attend  to  planting  and  gardening  matters  and  to  care  for  the 
grounds,  except  certain  reservations  intended  for  the  exclusive  use  of  the  public,  and 
to  erect  and  maintain  the  museum.  The  city  took  title  to  the  land  and  leased  to  the  Uni- 
versity the  parks  intended  to  be  developed  and  maintained  by  it.  The  arrangement  has 
worked  well.  The  city  has  a  park  of  two  hundred  and  twenty-three  acres,  at  a  cost  for 
land  of  about  $80,000,   including  that  covered   by  the  parkway. 

The  scenery  of  the  Arnold  Arboretum  is  varied  and  interesting,  the  principal  features 
being  two  hills  of  considerable  size,  one  of  which  commands  extensive  and  beautiful  views, 
and  the  other  is  valuable  because  extremely  rugged  and  wild,  having  upon  one  part  the 
largest  patch  of  wild  hemlock  woods  in  the  vicinity  of  Boston.  Partly,  perhaps,  because 
of  the  rarity  of  a  hemlock  wood  close  to  a  dense  population,  owing  to  the  ease  and 
completeness  with  which  it  is  destroyed  by  forest  fires,  and  partly  because  of  the  fact 
that  hemlocks  are  abundant  in  remote  mountainous  districts,  the  effect  of  a  remote, 
wild  forest  could  hardly  be  as  well  produced  by  any  other  tree. 

FRANKLIN    PARK 

As  an  illustration  of  park  designing,  the  plan  and  report  on  Franklin  Park  is  probably 
the  best  piece  of  work,  in  spite  of  some  disappointments  in  execution,  done  by  its  designer, 
Frederick  Law  Olmsted.  The  topography  and  ledges  and  trees  lent  themselves  not  only 
to  many  pictuesque  bits  of  landscape  designing,  but  afforded,  with  moderate  grading, 
excellent  fields  for  such  sports  as  are  permissible  in  a  landscape  park.  It  is  fair  to  say  that 
much  of  the  landscape  was  designed,  because  in  its  original  state  it  was  decidedly  different 
in  effect.  It  was  a  district  of  suburban  and  country  residences,  with  all  the  usual  artificial 
improvements  of  similar  suburban  districts,  such  as  houses,  stables,  greenhouses,  barns, 
sheds,  retaining  walls,  earth  terracing,  flower-  and  vegetable-gardens,  orchards,  drives, 
rows  of  shade  trees,  walls,  fences,  streets,  electric  poles,  gas-lamp  posts,  hydrants,  quarries, 
fields,  and  woodlots. 

One  primary  condition  of  the  design  was  self-imposed;  namely,  the  idea  that  the 
greater  part  of  the  park  should  be  left  unlighted  and  closed,  after  a  certain  hour,  for  the 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  53 

night.  This  idea,  no  doubt,  was  a  sound  one,  while  the  park  had  only  a  small  population 
about  it  and  while  the  cost  of  lighting  and  policing  the  park  efficiently  remains  almost 
prohibitive.  But  already,  yielding  to  the  characteristic  American  hatred  of  restraint, 
and  willingness  to  take  chances  of  robbery  and  even  murder,  this  theory  of  shutting 
the  greater  part  of  the  park  during  the  latter  half  of  the  night  has  been  abandoned,  even 
to  the  extent  of  tearing  down  the  gateways. 

Another  less  vital  feature  of  the  plan  of  Franklin  Park — The  Greeting — has  never 
been  carried  out,  but  appears  to  have  been  definitely  abandoned,  presumably  owing  to 
a  preference  for  extending  the  open-field  treatment  and  a  dislike  for  such  artificial  aids 
to  enjoyment  as  the  Mall  in  Central  Park,  New  York,  the  Rotten  Row  in  Hyde  Park, 
in  London,  and  the  corresponding  drive  in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne,  in  Paris.  The  idea  in 
each  case  is  a  social  congregating  place,  and  in  such  a  case  a  considerable  degree  of  arti- 
ficiality is  not  only  appropriate,  but  actually  essential  for  neatness  and  convenience. 

Another  feature  designed  in  contiguity  to  The  Greeting  was  The  Little  Folks'  Fair. 
This  was  intended  to  contain  the  means  of  amusement  permissible,  or  more  or  less  customary, 
in  parks,  such  as  a  path  for  pony  riding,  another  for  goat  carriages,  smoothly  paved 
places  for  scups  and  swings,  and  the  like.  Sooner  or  later  experience  proves  that  such 
things  get  into  parks,  and  the  prudent  designer  will  plan  a  suitable  concentration  of  them 
in  a  place  where  they  will  do  the  general  rural  landscape  of  the  park  little  or  no  harm, 
rather  than  leave  them  to  be  scattered  here  and  there  haphazard  and  often  with  no  regard 
to  the  effect  upon  the  general  design  or  the  need  of  reserving  certain  parts  of  the  park 
for  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  landscape.  It  was  for  this  sort  of  protection  of  the  park  proper 
that  The  Parade  was  created  as  an  adjunct  to  Prospect  Park,  Brooklyn,  and  Franklin 
Field  as  a  supplement  to  Franklin  Park. 

Another  feature  of  the  plan  was  the  assignment  of  a  considerable  area  along  the  north 
or  cityward  margin  of  the  park  for  the  use  at  some  future  time  by  a  Zoological  Society 
for  a  popular  exhibit  of  living  animals.  It  was,  however,  strongly  urged  that  the  collec- 
tion include  only  hardy  animals,  or  such  as  would  require  only  occasional  or  slight  pro- 
tection. The  occupation  of  part  of  the  park  by  anything  like  the  jumble  of  large  but 
cheap  and  unlovely  buildings  of  the  usual  Zoological  Gardens  was,  of  course,  repugnant 
to  the  designer  of  the  park;  yet  experience  indicated  that  it  was  more  prudent  to  endeavor 
to  guide  and  select  what  might  otherwise  be  done  badly  some  day  in  response  to  popular 
demand.  However,  not  even  a  start  was  made;  so  the  plan  amounts  to  nothing  more 
than  the  assignment  of  a  site  for  some  such  thing.  The  idea,  it  must  be  confessed,  has 
one  element  of  weakness;  namely  that,  being  on  the  border  of  the  park,  which  is  develop- 
ing as  a  good  residential  district,  the  noises  and  smells  of  some  of  the  animals  may  come 
to  be  so  strongly  objected  to  by  some  of  the  neighbors  that  the  administration  of  the 
park  may  be  driven  to  move  some  of  the  animals  further  into  the  park  where  they  have 
no  business  to  be. 

The  introduction  of  golf-playing  is  an  unwise  sacrifice  of  the  pleasure  and  comfort 
of  many  in  the  quiet  enjoyment  of  the  park.  Not  only  are  the  attractive  and  harmless 
sheep  driven  out,  but  the  gently  rolling  slope,  with  the  picturesque  slight  roughness 
incident  to  sheep  pasturage,  and  so  appropriately  suggestive,  to  the  nerve-wearied  visitor, 
of  the  peace  and  quiet  of  the  real  country,  is  replaced  by  the  hard,  artificially  smooth 
surface  made  by  constant  clipping  and  rolling,  and,  what  is  worse,  the  nerves  of  the  visitor 
are  still  further  irritated  by  the  anxiety  as  to  being  hit  by  the  hard  and  swiftly  driven 


54  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

balls.  It  seems  too  bad  that  a  few  scores  of  people  should  be  allowed  practically  to  monop- 
olize a  hundred  acres,  or  perhaps  two  hundred  acres,  of  the  most  beautiful  park  pastures, 
excluding,  or  at  any  rate  causing  discomfort  to,  thousands  of  other  visitors. 

COLUMBIA    ROAD 

Following  the  connected  chain  of  parks  and  parkways,  the  next  link  is  Columbia 
Road.  Owing  to  certain  exigencies  of  local  politics  and  city  finance,  this  avenue  was  laid 
out  under  the  authority  of  the  street  department,  and  subsequently  its  maintenance 
was  put  upon  the  Park  Commission.  Like  Huntington  Avenue  and  Blue  Hill  Avenue, 
it  was  laid  out  with  a  central  grass-plot  occupied  by  a  double-track  railway,  but  so  narrow 
that  there  is  no  room  for  trees,  making  the  central  trolley-poles  and  wires  very  conspic- 
uous. The  two  roadways,  although  wide  enough  for  present  traffic  and  even  for  that 
of  the  near  future,  are  certainly  not  wide  enough  to  afford  any  adequate  expression  of 
dignity  or  liberality.  One  of  the  roadways  is  reserved  for  pleasure  traffic,  while  the  other 
is  open  to  commercial  traffic.  There  is  a  grass  strip  between  the  two  roadways  wide  enough 
for  a  double  track  electric  railway  and  one  row  of  trees.  In  this  respect  it  is  markedly 
superior  to  Huntington  Avenue,  which  has  a  grassy  reservation  for  car-tracks  between 
two  roadways  but  no  trees.  Without  shade  trees  to  afford  a  picturesque  umbrageous- 
ness  which  would  make  the  narrowness  of  the  roadways  a  minor  matter  (to  the  eye 
at  least),  the  duplex  narrow  parkway  is  assuredly  an  esthetic  failure  compared  with  an 
avenue  of  the  same  total  width,  but  with  one  wide  roadway  with  flush  car-tracks  in  the 
middle,  and  with  the  trolley-poles  on  the  curb  along  with  the  sidewalk  row  of  trees. 
However,  whatever  its  defects,  this  parkway  does  actually  perform  a  useful  link  in  con- 
necting Franklin  Park  with  Marine  Park.  It  was  built  mainly  by  widening  previous 
streets— Columbia  Street  and  part  of  Boston  Street.  It  runs  through  a  well  built  up 
part  of  Dorchester  and  is  and  will  be  very  citified  in  the  character  of  buildings  along  it. 
Other  routes  for  a  parkway  from  Franklin  Park  to  the  shore  were  carefully  studied;  but 
this,  as  the  shortest  route,  was  preferred  in  spite  of  its  expense.  It  connects  with  the 
next  link  of  parkway  at  one  of  the  civic  centers  of  Dorchester — Edward  Everett  Square. 

DORCHESTERWAY 

This  connects  with  Columbia  Road  at  Edward  Everett  Square,  and  extends  to  The 
Strandway,  having  been  laid  out  by  the  Park  Commission.  It  crosses  the  Old  Colony 
Railroad  by  a  simple  but  substantial  bridge,  and  then  turns  abruptly  toward  South  Bos- 
ton. The  original  design  was  to  have  it  extend  by  a  long  curve  to  the  shore  of  Dor- 
chester Bay,  but  the  city,  having  acquired  the  road-bed  and  right-of-way  of  the  former 
location  of  the  Old  Colony  Railroad  in  this  locality,  the  less  desirable  route  was  followed 
as  a  matter  of  economy. 

THE   STRANDWAY 

This  will  certainly  be  a  very  imposing  parkway  when  completed  and  when  the  trees 
have  grown.  It  has  two  roadways,  one  on  the  landward  side  for  access  to  house-lots, 
the  other  adjoining  a  wide,  gently  sloping  gravel  beach,  artificially  formed.  There  are 
fine  views  over  Boston  Harbor  except  where  it  was  thought  best  to  locate  several  yacht- 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  55 

club  houses.  The  long  curves  and  changing  views  will  tend  to  relieve  the  formal  monotony 
of  the  parallel,  level  roadways  and  rows  of  trees,  as  will  also  various  scraps  of  land  on 
the  landward  side  due  to  making  the  boundary  follow  old  lot  lines  in  some  places.  Large 
areas  in  the  shallow  bay  are  being  dredged  to  improve  the  anchorage  ground  for  yachts. 
The  myriads  of  little  yachts  and  sailboats  here  constitute  one  of  the  sights  of  Boston. 

MARINE    PARK 

Probably  few  of  those  engaged  in  determining  upon  a  park  at  City  Point,  the  east 
end  of  South  Boston,  had  the  faintest  conception  of  what  was  to  result  from  the  imagination 
of  the  lansdcape  architect,  for  there  was  practically  nothing  to  guide  the  imagination. 
There  was  a  small  fringe  of  upland  outside  Q  Street,  with  a  few  small  boating  establish- 
ments and  wharves  upon  and  attached  to  it.  The  rest  was  mud  flats  at  low  water,  and 
shallow  water.  The  first  thought  was  to  have  a  shore  drive  and  beach,  the  next  to  extend 
the  drive  across  the  shallow  water  to  Castle  Island;  then  to  run  out  a  point  and  a  long 
promenade  pier  at  the  other  end.  The  beach  between  the  two  naturally  took  on  in  the 
mind  of  the  designer  a  convex  curve,  and  hence  followed  the  idea  of  Pleasure  Bay.  Dredg- 
ing the  bay  to  supply  material  for  filling,  and  adding  a  great  bathing  establishment 
and  refreshment  pavilion  for  the  populace,  brought  the  design  nearly  to  completion; 
but  there  were  many  difficulties  and  a  vast  expense  involved.  The  plan  is  not  yet  entirely 
executed,  even  with  the  expenditure  of  a  million  dollars;  but  the  plan  was  cordially  approved, 
and  the  city  has  an  original  and  magnificent  recreation  place  which  is  immensely  patronized 
on  warm,  pleasant  holidays  by  the  populace,  but  not  much  visited  by  the  well-to-do  of 
the  other  districts  of  the  city.  It  is  a  worthy  terminal  for  one  of  the  most  varied  and 
picturesque  continuous  park  systems  of  the  country. 

Time  is  lacking  for  describing  other  parks  and  playgrounds  belonging  to  the  city. 
As  a  concluding  statement,  the  city  has  paid  out  for  parks  up  to  a  year  and  a  half  ago 
just  about  $18,000,000,  and  is  satisfied  she  got  her  money's  worth. 


THE   METROPOLITAN   PARK  SYSTEM   OF   BOSTON 

By  FREDERICK    LAW  OLMSTED 
fMeeting  of  July  8.  1905) 

AN  address  on  the  Metropolitan  Park  System  of  Boston  was  part  of  the  program 
/-%  of  the  summer  meeting  of  July  8,  1905.  This  address  was  not  reported.  As  it  seems 
very  desirable  to  have  a  complete  and  authoritative  description  of  the  entire  Boston 
Park  System  as  one  of  the  most  interesting  and  important  in  the  world,  the  following  pages 
are  reprinted  from  "A  History  and  Description  of  the  Boston  Metropolitan  Parks,"  written 
by  Mr.  A.  A.  Shurtleff  under  the  general  direction  of  Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted,  and  published  in 
1900  under  the  authority  of  the  Metropolitan  Park  Commissioners,  by  the  Board  of  Paris 
Exposition  Managers,  Boston,  Mass.,  as  part  of  the  Exhibition  of  the  Public  Works  Boston 
Metropolitan  District,  U.  S.  Section,  Group  VI,  Champ  de  Mars.  To  illustrate  and  bring 
it  up-to-date,  a  map  of  the  Boston  Park  System,  furnished  by  the  courtesy  of  the  Metro- 
politan Park  Commission  of  Boston,  and  revised  up  to  191  o,  and  a  table  of  areas  taken 
from  the  report  of  the  Metropolitan   Park  Commission,  of  1910,  have  been  added. 

METROPOLITAN    BOSTON 

In  outlining  the  growth  of  the  original  settlement  which  became  the  great  city  of 
Boston,  it  was  mentioned  that  various  small  settlements  sprang  up  near  the  young  city 
and  grew  to  be  of  considerable  size.  Certain  of  these  towns  were  gathered  into  counties 
as  early  as  1640,  and  the  limits  of  each  township  were  defined.  These  early  townships 
included  large  tracts  within  their  boundaries,  and  villages  soon  appeared  in  them,  which 
increased  so  rapidly  in  size  and  influence  as  to  become  unwieldy  and  unwilling  precincts 
of  the  original  township.  Such  villages  secured  division  from  the  original  body,  and 
established  smaller  townships  of  their  own.  It  thus  came  about  that  the  number  of  inde- 
pendent municipalities  within  a  radius  of  eleven  miles  of  Boston,  in  1890,  numbered  thirty- 
seven,  of  which  twelve  were  cities.  The  population  of  this  district  was  approximately 
a  million  souls,  of  which  number  half  were  citizens  of  Boston.  The  interests  of  the  entire 
district  centered  in  this  great  heart  of  commerce  and  industry.  Except  for  the  arbitrary 
boundary  line  and  political  separation  of  the  smaller  municipalties  from  Boston,  all  the 
inhabitants  of  the  district  constituted  one  metropolis.  Their  real  political  separation 
however,  was  made  plain,  and  the  disadvantages  of  it  were  evident,  when  it  was  discovered 
that  works  for  the  advantage  of  the  whole  community  could  not  be  undertaken  because 
of  the  barrier  between  the  parts.  In  1875  **  became  apparent  that  this  great  population 
had  at  least  one  problem  before  it  which  could  not  be  solved  effectively  by  the  independent 
action  of  the  separate  municipalities.  That  problem  was  the  problem  of  sewage  disposal. 
At  that  time  the  health  of  a  large  part  of  the  district  was  menaced  by  the  discharge  of 
countless  sewers  into  tide  water  along  the  harbor  front  and  along  the  borders  of  entering 
streams.  The  city  of  Boston  was  able  to  take  independent  action  at  once  for  herself,  and 
installed  a  system  of  sewers  within  her  own  boundaries,  discharging  into  the  outer  harbor. 
This  improvement  only  partially  relieved  the  nuisance  affecting  the  community  at  large, 
but  it  made  the  advantages  of  further  action  more  evident.    The  situation  of  the  towns 

(56) 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  57 

rendered  it  impossible  for  them  to  find  proper  points  for  sewage  discharge  within  their 
own  boundaries.  Commission  after  commission  was  appointed  to  investigate  the  problem, 
until  the  State  Legislature  at  last  authorized  the  formation  of  a  Metropolitan  Sewerage 
Commission,  to  construct  and  operate  a  system  of  trunk  sewers  for  the  relief  of  the  whole 
district.  The  appointment  of  a  commission  by  the  State  to  undertake  the  solution  of  a 
problem  affecting  a  number  of  communities  closely  related  to  one  another  and  yet  unable 
to  help  themselves  by  independent  effort,  marks  an  important  period  in  the  history  of 
the  Boston  district.  The  Commission  effectively  carried  out  the  improvements  entrusted 
to  it,  and  the  sanitary  disabilities  of  the  various  towns  and  cities  were  relieved. 

CONDITIONS    DEMANDING    METROPOLITAN    PARKS    IN    1892 

During  the  period  between  1869  and  1892,  while  the  city  of  Boston  was  securing 
a  park  system  for  itself  by  argument,  legislative  act,  and  actual  construction,  the  district 
about  Boston  which  had  been  described  as  a  part  of  the  central  city  to  all  intents,  except 
in  name,  was  taking  on  a  congested  growth  similar  to  that  which  made  parks  necessary 
for  Boston  in  1869.  The  arguments  that  had  been  advanced  for  Boston  parks  were  re-stated 
with  nearly  equal  force  for  each  of  the  near  cities.  Houses  had  covered  the  face  of  the 
country,  and  the  outlying  districts,  which  had  always  furnished  a  field  for  recreation, 
were  being  built  upon  until  town  was  touching  town.  Only  upon  the  outermost  borders 
of  the  district  could  out-of-door  recreation  be  enjoyed  among  natural  sourroundings, 
and  the  town-dwellers  found  these  places  too  expensive  and  too  difficult  of  access  for  frequent 
visits.  Few  of  the  towns  and  cities  of  the  district  possessed  open  spaces  within  their  own 
limits  which  were  larger  than  small  squares,  and  these  areas  were  often  ill  provided  with 
facilities  for  the  utilization  of  their  precincts  as  playgrounds  or  even  as  resting-places. 
Vacant  lots  here  and  there  furnished  playgrounds  for  children;  but  when  these  lots  were 
built  upon,  streets  and  sidewalks  were  the  only  resource  left  to  them.  Many  of  the  towns 
were  traversed  by  rivers  whose  borders  were  already  occupied  to  an  alarming  extent  by 
a  class  of  cheap  dwellings  that  threatened  to  obliterate  what  little  beauty  remained  to 
the  abused  streams,  and  to  bring  about  unhealthy  conditions  of  habitation.  The  least 
favorable  sites  for  houses  upon  the  rugged  cliff-like  hills  which  bordered  certain  parts 
of  the  inner  towns  of  the  district  were  also  being  sought.  The  river  borders  and  the  rugged 
hills  had  been  spared  until  this  time  by  the  unconscious  plan  of  development  which  topog- 
raphy had  forced  upon  the  community,  and  it  was  clear  that  these  territories  could  be 
made  to  offer  recreation  advantages  as  parks,  although  they  did  not  offer  healthy  or  desirable 
house-sites. 

The  city  of  Boston,  as  already  described,  was  able  to  solve  her  own  problem  for  the 
relief  of  congestion  and  prevent  the  occupation  of  certain  unsanitary  ground  by  creating 
a  park  system  for  herself.  Her  relief,  however,  contributed  very  little  advantage  to  the 
cities  and  towns  upon  her  borders  except  toward  the  south  and  west,  where  the  inhabitants 
of  a  few  towns  were  able  to  enjoy  privileges  which  they  had  no  hand  in  creating.  It  there- 
fore remained  for  the  great  metropolitan  district  to  secure  parks  for  itself. 

THE    MOVEMENT    FOR    METROPOLITAN    PARKS 

At  the  time  when  the  need  of  parks  as  a  means  to  relieve  the  evils  of  close  settlement 
and  to  solve  certain  sanitary  problems  was  greatest,  there  was  a  pronounced  movement 


58  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

among  all  classes  in  the  community  for  outdoor  sports.  Sailing,  bicycling,  baseball, 
lawn-tennis  and  many  other  sports  gained  unprecedented  popularity.  Hand  in  hand 
with  these  athletic  interests  went  an  interest  in  flowers  and  the  creatures  of  the  field  and 
wood.  At  this  period  the  works  of  certain  landscape  painters  were  attracting  universal 
admiration,  and  the  camera  had  brought  a  ready  means  of  landscape  record  to  the  hands 
of  everyone.  These  physical  and  esthetic  tendencies  in  the  community  ensured  the 
marshaling  of  a  host  of  champions  to  assist  a  movement  for  parks  which  would  satisfy 
the  newly  awakened  desires,  although  based  upon  sanitary,  moral,  and  educational  needs. 
The  success  of  the  parks  secured  by  the  city  of  Boston  had  proved  the  practicability  of 
public  control  of  large  tracts  of  land  for  recreation,  and  it  had  proved  the  possibility  of 
making  such  open  spaces  beautiful  in  the  highest  sense.  The  Boston  parks  were  examples 
of  the  practical  and  esthetic  needs  of  the  cities  and  towns  about  Boston  which  were  too 
short-sighted  to  provide  open  spaces  for  the  future  when  land  was  cheap  and  plenty,  and 
too  poor  and  weak  to  provide  them  when  land  for  recreation  was  costly  but  sorely  needed. 

The  district  needing  parks  was,  of  course,  composed  of  those  cities  and  towns  in  the 
vicinity  of  Boston  which  were  so  far  away  from  unsettled  country  that  access  to  it  for 
purposes  of  recreation  was  impossible  or  shortly  to  be  impossible.  As  already  described, 
this  district,  although  possessing  sufficient  ties  with  the  central  city  to  make  it  a  political 
part  of  that  metropolis,  was  nevertheless  divided  by  petty  boundaries  into  small  inde- 
pendencies, distinct  politically  from  it  and  from  one  another.  The  jealousies  of  these  towns 
and  cities  were  likely  to  be  so  great,  and  their  breadth  of  view  so  narrow,  that  the  inade- 
quate funds  at  their  command  could  accomplish  little  toward  the  establishment  of  effective 
parks.  So  compact  was  their  growth  and  so  confined  were  they  by  one  another,  that 
nothing  short  of  a  series  of  connecting  parks  and  parkways  could  offer  them  escape  from 
their  own  streets,  and  yet  they  were  unable  to  provide  such  a  system.  The  problem  was 
not  unlike  that  affecting  sewage  disposal  in  the  towns  near  Boston,  as  already  described; 
but  the  applicability  of  state  aid  was  not  as  evident,  and  a  much  larger  district  was  involved. 
A  form  of  legislation  which  had  never  been  found  necessary  before,  and  which  was  needed 
for  one  part  of  the  state  only,  seemed  at  first  sight  an  expedient  out  of  keeping  with  the 
provinces  of  the  state  government. 

Despite  the  obstacles  which  stood  in  the  way  of  the  establishment  of  parks  for  the 
metropolis  of  separate  towns  and  cities,  the  acquisition  of  such  open  spaces  was  shortly 
to  be  assured  by  a  park  movement  so  short  in  apparent  duration,  so  free  from  opposition 
and  controversy,  and  so  far-reaching  in  its  ultimate  results,  as  to  make  the  ten  years' 
struggle  which  had  been  a  forerunner  of  Boston  city  parks  seem  inexplicable.  It  must 
be  remembered,  however,  that  the  community  was  awake  to  the  necessity  of  greater 
parks,  and  that  the  early  battle  for  Boston  parks  had  defeated  an  opposition  which  could 
nevermore  gain  audience.  At  the  time  of  this  movement  certain  picturesque  tracts  of 
wild  land  north  of  Boston,  which  had  always  been  resorted  to  by  a  great  number  of  persons 
for  the  enjoyment  of  woodland  and  pond  scenery,  were  threatened  by  the  advance  of 
building  operations,  which  promised,  in  a  short  season,  to  extend  over  the  entire  region. 
At  the  same  period  certain  wild  tracts  south  of  Boston,  which  had  gained  a  similar  public 
favor  by  their  enjoyable  scenery,  were  also  in  jeopardy  at  the  hands  of  private  owners. 
Although  both  these  tracts  were  owned  by  many  individual  proprietors,  and  the  public 
at  large  had  no  rights  in  the  territory,  yet  when  the  people  discovered  that  the  beauty 
of  these  sylvan  tracts  was  to  suffer  serious  injury,  and  that  an  enjoyment  of  one  of  the 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  59 

natural  resources  of  the  Boston  district  was  to  be  taken  from  them,  a  popular  outcry 
-arose.  This  attitude  of  this  community  toward  certain  tracts  of  land  and  its  favorable 
attitude  toward  parks  in  general  will  go  far  to  explain  the  readiness  with  which  a  popular 
movement  for  metropolitan  parks  was  begun  and  the  ease  with  which  its  objects  were 
attained. 

In  1891  a  body  of  citizens,  consisting  of  members  of  the  various  local  park  boards 
in  the  vicinity  of  Boston,  members  of  a  corporation  known  as  "The  Trustees  of  Public 
Reservations,"  members  of  a  popular  club  of  mountain-climbers  known  as  "The  Appa- 
lachian Mountain  Club,"  members  of  philanthropic  societies,  and  individuals,  appointed 
a  representing  committee  to  appeal  to  the  State  Legislature  for  parks  in  the  vicinity  of 
Boston  for  the  benefit  of  the  whole  community.  In  reference  to  this  appeal  the  legislature 
of  1892  appointed  an  inquiring  commission  of  three  members,  who  were  instructed  to 
study  the  needs  of  the  district  in  regard  to  parks  and  to  report  to  the  next  Legislature. 
The  commission  was  empowered  to  employ  assistants,  and  to  prepare  such  plans  and 
documents  as  might  be  necessary  for  a  complete  exposition  of  the  problem  and  its  solution. 
The  member  of  the  commission  examined  the  district  alone  and  with  local  park  boards, 
and  employed  Charles  Eliot*  as  their  landscape  architect.  The  first  report,  dated  January, 
1893,  is  of  great  interest.  This  report  led  to  the  appointment  of  a  permanent  commission 
empowered  to  provide  parks  for  the  advantage  of  that  part  of  the  region  about  Boston 
included  within  the  limits  of  certain  of  the  cities  and  towns  which  were  enumerated  as  con- 
stituting the  Metropolitan  Park  District  of  Boston.  The  Board  of  Metropolitan  Park 
Commissioners  has  continued  to  exercise  its  powers  for  the  taking  and  improvement  of 
lands  for  the  Metropolitan  District  until  the  present  time,  and  the  remainder  of  this 
pamphlet  will  be  devoted  to  an  outline  of  the  work  which  the  Board  has  accomplished. 

THE    TOPOGRAPHY    OF    THE    METROPOLITAN    DISTRICT    IN    1893 

Before  enumerating  the  recommendations  of  the  Metropolitan  Park  Commissioners, 
and  describing  the  lands  taken  by  them  for  public  parks,  it  will  be  profitable  to  consider 
the  general  landscape  features  of  the  seashore  and  the  inland  country  of  the  Metropolitan 
district  as  they  appeared  in  1893.  A  contour  map  of  Boston  and  its  vicinity,  including 
all  the  towns  of  the  Metropolitan  District,  will  be  found  accompanying  this  paper. 
By  reference  to  this  plan,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  Atlantic  Ocean  washes  the  wharves  of 
Boston  and  the  curiously  irregular  shores  which  converge  toward  them  from  the  north- 
east and  the  southeast,  through  the  channels  and  over  the  shoals  of  the  island-strewn 
Boston  Bay.  In  the  innermost  reaches  of  this  bay,  three  rivers — the  Mystic,  the  Charles 
and  the  Neponset — meet  the  sea,  and  discharge  the  waters  of  the  comparatively  level 
but  hill-dotted  Boston  basin  and  the  waters  of  the  horseshoe-shaped  range  of  abrupt 
hills  upon  the  north,  west  and  south.  The  positions  of  the  various  cities  and  towns  which 
occupy  this  country  are  shown  upon  the  plan,  together  with  the  highways  and  railroads 
which  connect  them.    (A  revised  contour  map  will  be  found  facing  page  42.) 

The  Ocean. — The  advance  of  population  in  an  easterly  direction  from  the  Boston 
basin  is  barred  by  the  ocean,  whose  borders  will  always  remain  open  to  light  and  air,  no 
matter  what  shadows  and  barriers  may  darken  the  inland  districts;  recreation  will  always 
be  at  hand  upon  its  borders,  wherever  there  is  a  foothold  or  an  opportunity  to  enter  boats. 

'Deceased  March  25,  1897. 


60  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

The  islands  of  the  bay  also  offer  a  resource  to  the  cities  and  towns  which  the  growth  of 
the  district  can  hardly  endanger. 

The  Ocean  Shore. — The  ocean  has  found  a  remarkably  irregular  shore  for  itself  among 
the  half-submerged  crags  and  drumlins  which  border  the  coast  line,  or  have  been  engulfed 
and  by  the  action  of  the  waves  again  connected  with  the  mainland  by  long,  sandy  beaches. 
The  seashore  has  attracted  two  classes  of  settlement  to  it:  Trade  and  commerce  have 
sought  it,  where  good  harbors  offered  encouragement  to  shipping;  and  the  cottager  and 
hotel-keeper  have  sought  it,  where  its  picturesque  qualities  and  its  proximity  to  railroads 
made  it  available  for  summer  resorts.  The  city  of  Boston  did  not  allow  her  ships  to  occupy 
the  whole  extent  of  the  shore  line  at  her  command,  but  she  provided  a  harbor  playground 
and  bathing-beach,  and  a  large  marine  park  at  the  expense  of  wharves  and  warehouses, 
for  the  pleasure  of  her  citizens,  as  already  described.  The  seashores  of  the  district  were 
suffering  a  greater  harm,  however,  from  the  occupation  of  certain  beaches  by  an  undesir- 
able class  of  cottages,  hotels,  dance-halls,  restaurants  and  bath-houses.  The  great  sweeps 
of  sandy  beach  at  Revere  and  Nantasket  were  occupied  from  their  crests  to  high-water 
mark,  and  even  below  that  line,  by  establishments  of  this  kind,  which  attracted  a  host 
of  people  of  a  somewhat  disorderly  type.  These  matchless  shores  were  thus  enjoyed  by 
one  class  only  in  the  community.  Certain  other  reaches  of  beach  and  headland  were  also 
threatened  with  similar  occupancy  at  the  hands  of  private  owners. 

The  Rivers. — The  description  of  the  part  played  by  rivers  in  the  advance  of  the  early 
settlements  near  Boston  makes  it  clear  that  these  streams  must  have  been  closely  pressed 
by  houses  in  1893.  Although  this  was  true  of  the  Mystic,  Charles,  and  Neponset  in  parts 
of  their  courses  where  the  tenements  and  mills  of  manufactories  had  found  a  profitable 
lodgement,  there  were  portions  of  these  water-ways  which  had  not  been  so  seriously  tres- 
passed upon  as  to  rob  them  of  all  their  original  beauties.  The  upper  waters  of  these  streams 
and  the  marshy  mouths  of  the  Mystic  and  Neponset  were  nearly  free  from  encumbrance, 
although  they  were  not  likely  to  enjoy  this  immunity  for  many  years.  The  map  of  the 
district  shows  in  a  rough  way  the  condition  of  the  river  borders  as  regards  settlement. 
The  opportunities  offered  for  recreation  by  these  rivers  were  many  and  valuable,  and 
it  was  evident  to  the  host  of  persons  who  enjoyed  these  privileges  that  the  rivers  and 
their  banks  were  a  resource  of  the  district  which  should  be  free  from  the  caprice  of  private 
ownership.  The  water  boards  of  many  towns  had  already  looked  far  enough  into  the 
future  to  satisfy  them  of  the  advantages  of  controlling  certain  parts  of  the  streams,  and 
they  had  accordingly  purchased  tracts  of  shore  for  their  own  needs. 

Ponds. — The  ponds  lying  within  the  Metropolitan  District  were  for  the  most  part 
held  by  local  parks  or  water  boards,  who  had  reserved  nearly  all  pond  borders,  and  insured 
the  purity  of  their  waters. 

The  Floor  of  the  Boston  Basin. — This  tract  of  comparatively  level  country,  strewn 
with  gravelly  hills,  was  covered,  by  the  progress  of  settlement  already  described,  with 
a  mantle  of  houses  which  could  afford  no  adequate  opportunities  for  recreation  within 
its  midst.  Effective  highways  or  parkways,  as  a  means  of  escape  from  its  confines  to  parks 
upon  its  borders,  were  sadly  needed.  By  reference  to  the  plan,  it  will  be  seen  how  com- 
pletely certain  of  the  hills  which  stood  in  the  way  of  settlement  were  overwhelmed  by 
the  house-mantle,  and  how  circuitous  in  many  cases  were  the  traffic  roads  which  connected 
the  heart  of  the  settlement  with  the  country  districts  upon  its  borders. 

The  Enclosing  Horseshoe  of  Hills. — The  everspreading  mantle  of  houses  had  already 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  61 

commenced  to  enfold  the  slopes  of  the  rugged  range  of  hills  upon  the  limits  of  the  Boston 
basin.  The  map  shows  the  occupation  of  the  bold  front  of  the  range  northwest  of  Boston 
at  Winchester,  Maiden,  Melrose,  Arlington  Heights,  and  north  of  Boston  at  Lynn.  The 
city  of  Lynn  had  viewed  this  inroad  upon  her  hills  with  concern,  and  she  had  accordingly 
purchased  over  500  hectares  (2,000  acres)  of  land  upon  these  crests  for  a  park  and  a  water- 
supply  basin.  The  value  which  the  inhabitants  of  the  Metropolitan  District  recognized 
in  certain  of  the  wild  tracts  upon  these  bounding  hills  as  areas  for  recreation  has  been 
dwelt  upon;  but  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  the  hills  northwest  of  Boston,  between 
Winchester  and  Maiden,  and  the  great  range  of  the  Blue  Hills  south  of  Boston,  were  the 
tracts  which  appealed  to  them  most  strongly.  Settlement  had  already  laid  hold  upon 
the  first  of  these  tracts.  In  the  second  tract,  a  private  ownership  which  permitted  the 
wholesale  destruction  of  the  forest-cover  by  wood-cutting,  and  which  was  powerless  to 
check  devastating  fires,  was  arousing  popular  indignation. 

THE    WORK    OF    THE    COMMISSION 

To  rehearse  the  seven  years'  history  of  the  work  accomplished  by  the  Commissioners 
of  Boston  Metropolitan  Parks,  as  set  forth  by  the  open  spaces  which  they  have  secured 
for  the  public  to  be  preserved  and  improved  for  recreation  purposes,  would  occupy  far 
greater  space  than  is  now  at  hand.  One  characteristic  of  the  work  and  policy  of  the  com- 
mission will  make  a  short  treatment  of  the  subject  effective,  however.  That  characteristic 
is  that  the  plan  outlined  by  the  first  Board  and  its  Landscape  Architect  and  Secretary, 
in  1893,  has  been  followed  in  the  acquisition  and  development  of  territory  without  con- 
siderable deviation  until  the  present  time.  It  will  therefore  be  necessary  only  to  review 
the  recommendations  of  the  first  Board,  which  will  amount  practically  to  a  statement 
of  the  lands  secured.  To  this  statement  will  be  added  a  short  description  of  two  of  the 
characteristic  reservations  of  the  system.  In  describing  the  recommendations,  and  the 
acquisition  of  territory  which  followed  them,  it  will  be  convenient  to  return  to  the  order 
of  treatment  which  was  used  above  in  the  description  of  the  main  topographical  features 
of  the  Metropolitan  District.  These  features  have  been  described  sufficiently  already  to 
make  further  elaboration  of  them  unnecessary.  The  acquisitions  of  the  Commission  are 
shown  in  a  green  tint  upon  the  map  already  mentioned. 

The  Ocean. — It  was  observed  in  the  Commissioners'  report  of  1893  that,  perhaps, 
no  city  in  the  world,  with  the  exception  of  Venice,  had  made  so  good  use  of  the  facilities 
offered  for  recreation  upon  harbor  waters  as  Boston.  Her  marine  parks  and  playgrounds 
and  her  fleet  of  pleasure  craft  were  then,  as  now,  almost  without  a  counterpart.  While 
it  was  observed  that  the  islands  of  the  bay  would  offer  valuable  recreation  areas  in  the 
future,  it  was  suggested  that  immediate  action  in  regard  to  them  was  not  necessary, 
because  the  lands  were  with  few  exceptions  in  safe  keeping  by  city,  state  and  national 
government. 

The  Ocean  Shore. — Takings  were  recommended  along  the  shore  north  of  Boston, 
including  Revere  Beach  and  adjacent  shores  in  the  district  which  had  suffered  by  private 
interests,  as  already  described.  Extensive  shore  takings  were  also  advised  along  the  Quincy 
coast,  south  of  Boston.  The  acquisition  of  over  six  miles  of  these  shores  has  been  accom- 
plished, and  a  part  of  Nantasket  Beach  has  also  been  secured,  together  with  King's  Beach 
near  Lynn. 


62  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

The  Rivers. — Along  the  Charles  River  takings  were  recommended  from  Boston  to 
Newton  Lower  Falls,  including  territory  upon  both  banks,  forming  nearly  continuous 
ribbons.  Acquisitions  have  been  made  which  include  all  those  recommendations,  and 
which  have  reserved  sufficient  additional  territory  to  extend  the  realm  of  public  owner- 
ship nearly  to  Dedham.  Over  224  hectares  (560  acres)  are  included  in  these  lands,  exclusive 
of  banks  restricted  but  not  taken. 

The  takings  along  the  Mystic  River  include  a  little  over  100  hectares  (250  acres). 
Other  territory  is  unlikely  to  be  added,  because  the  lower  reaches  of  the  river  are  needed 
for  commercial  purposes. 

The  Neponset  River  recommendations  have  been  somewhat  exceeded  in  the  acqui- 
sitions of  banks  and  meadows.  Public  ownership  along  the  stream  now  comprises  nearly 
400  hectares  (1,000  acres)  of  land  free  from  private  control. 

The  Beaver  Brook  Reservation,  between  Waltham  and  Belmont,  has  been  secured 
upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Commission.  It  occupies  24  hectares  (60  acres)  of  land. 
As  regards  the  minor  streams  and  brooks  of  the  Metropolitan  district,  the  commissioners' 
report  stated  that  they  should  be  brought  under  public  control.  Many  of  the  parkways 
since  constructed  by  the  Commissioners  have  followed  the  courses  of  these  streams,  and 
have  reserved  them  between  lines  of  roadway  in  a  ribbon  of  land  especially  devoted  to 
their  protection. 

Ponds.- — The  Commission  recommended  that  the  shores  of  the  Mystic  Lakes,  which 
lie  northwest  of  Boston,  near  West  Medford,  be  secured  for  the  public.  Over  half  this 
territory  has  been  acquired.  Almost  all  the  still  water  in  the  Metropolitan  district  is  con- 
trolled by  the  public,  through  the  agency  of  park  and  water  boards,  and  the  Metropolitan 
Park  Commissioners  have  not  found  it  a  part  of  their  duties,  therefore,  to  secure  ponds 
and  lakes. 

The  Floor  of  the  Boston  Basin. — Specific  recommendations  were  made  for  a  parkway 
connection  between  the  proposed  takings  at  Revere  Beach  and  the  Mystic  Lakes,  and 
general  recommendations  for  parkway  connections  between  the  various  other  reservations 
and  the  districts  needing  access  to  them  were  also  specified.  The  Revere  Beach  Parkway 
has  realized  the  specific  recommendation,  and  a  large  number  of  other  parkways  have 
supplied  the  other  desired  connections.  The  position  and  strategic  value  of  these  links 
between  the  areas  set  apart  for  recreation  and  the  closely  settled  districts  which  they 
serve  is  made  plain  on  the  plan. 

The  Enclosing  Hills. — The  Commission  recommended  the  taking  of  those  two  extensive 
tracts  of  woodland  upon  the  steep  slopes  of  the  northern  and  the  southern  hills,  which 
have  already  been  described  as  holding  a  high  place  in  public  regard.  These  two  tracts 
have  been  acquired,  and  are  known  as  the  Middlesex  Fells  and  the  Blue  Hills  Reservation. 
Their  areas  are  respectively  1,200  hectares  (3,000  acres),  and  1,900  hectares  (4,800  acres). 
Of  the  area  of  the  first  tract,  460  hectares  (1,150  acres)  are  controlled  by  the  Metropolitan 
Water  Board.  Recommendations  of  the  Commission  for  takings  upon  the  western  upland 
escarpment,  near  Waltham,  have  not  as  yet  been  realized,  except  to  a  small  degree  in  a 
reservation  made  by  the  local  authorities  of  that  town.  A  tract  of  woodland  lying  upon 
a  detached  spur  of  the  southern  range  of  hills,  and  including  an  attractive  pond  in  its 
midst,  has  been  acquired  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Commission.  The  area  of  this 
acquisition,  known  as  the  Stony  Brook  reservation,  is  180  hectares  (450  acres). 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  63 

THE   METROPOLITAN    PARKS    AS    A    WHOLE 

It  is  made  evident,  by  the  plan  of  the  Boston  Metropolitan  district  and  its  reser- 
vations, that  ample  open  spaces  have  been  provided  for  the  people  upon  the  high  bordering 
hills,  upon  the  banks  of  the  traversing  rivers,  and  upon  the  bounding  ocean  shores.  The 
plan  also  shows  the  parkways  which  tie  the  various  reservations  to  one  another  and  bring 
them  within  reach  of  the  people  of  the  cities.  The  uniform  distribution  of  open  spaces 
around  and  within  the  district,  and  the  effective  parkway  connections  between  them  and 
the  heart  of  population,  characterize  the  Boston  Metropolitan  Parks  as  a  system,  well 
balanced,  and  well  knit  to  the  great  metropolis  of  which  it  has  become  an  organic  part.  The 
lands  thus  secured  to  the  public  amount  to  3,710  hectares  (9,280  acres),  and  include  in 
addition  27  kilometers  or  17  miles  of  connecting  parkways.  The  cost  of  the  system,  to 
date  (1900),  for  land  and  improvements,  is  $5,135,000. 

THE    RESERVATIONS 

It  has  been  the  policy  of  the  Commissioners  to  develop  acquired  lands  to  no  greater 
extent  than  to  improve  existing  roads,  to  establish  fire  patrols,  to  maintain  superinten- 
dents, police  forces,  and  sufficient  numbers  of  laborers  to  mend  roads  and  to  attend  to 
minor  forest  inprovements.  In  the  case  of  the  Revere  Beach  Reservation,  however,  the 
Commission  has  undertaken  the  execution  of  completed  works  from  carefully  prepared 
plans.  In  order  to  set  forth  the  policy  of  the  Commissioners  in  these  matters,  and  to  describe 
the  chief  characteristics  of  two  of  the  reservations,  it  will  be  profitable  to  refer  briefly  to 
the  Revere  Beach  and  Middlesex  Fells  Reservations.  As  for  the  other  open  spaces,  no 
further  reference  can  be  made  to  them  within  the  limits  of  the  present  description. 

The  Revere  Beach  Reservation. — The  occupation  of  Revere  Beach,  previous  to  its  acqui- 
sition by  the  Board,  by  an  objectionable  class  of  hotels,  dance-halls  and  shops,  and  its 
patronage  by  a  rough  element  in  the  communtity,  to  the  discomfiture  of  others,  has  been 
described  already.  Upon  securing  this  tract  of  shore  for  the  public,  the  commission  removed 
all  buildings  from  the  front  slope  of  the  beach,  and  cooperated  with  the  railroad,  which 
occupied  its  crest,  to  find  a  new  location  behind  the  remaining  houses.  Upon  the  original 
site  of  the  railroad,  a  driveway  with  bordering  promenades  was  provided,  extending  for 
a  distance  of  over  two  miles  along  the  crest  of  the  beach.  This  radical  change  not  only 
made  the  beach  accessible  to  a  much  larger  number  of  persons  than  had  enjoyed  it  before, 
but  it  brought  about  a  remarkable  improvement  in  the  buildings  bordering  the  new  prop- 
erty at  the  hands  of  their  owners,  who  found  it  profitable  to  prepare  for  a  better  class 
of  patronage.  Not  satisfied  with  these  improvements,  the  Commission  provided  shelters 
at  various  points  along  the  waterside  promenade  for  the  accommodation  of  sightseers; 
and  it  also  erected  an  administration  building,  in  conjunction  with  two  extensive  bath- 
houses for  surf-bathing.  In  connection  with  these  buildings,  a  laundry,  a  bicycle-storage 
shed  and  a  police  station  were  installed.  Dressing-rooms  to  the  number  of  1,700  were 
provided,  and  over  7,000  men  and  women  have  used  them  in  one  day.  A  small  charge 
is  made  for  the  dressing-rooms  and  for  the  use  of  bathing  suits  and  towels.  The  receipts 
from  this  source  in  1899  covered  the  cost  of  the  year's  maintenance,  which  amounted  to 
$20,000.  The  natural  resources  of  the  reservation,  in  a  shore  offering  unexcelled  oppor- 
tunities for  bathing  and  an  inspiring  view  of  the  open  sea,  when  combined  with  the  pro- 


64  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

visions  for  enjoyment  afforded  by  the  bath-houses  and  the  various  shelters,  have  made 
this  acquisition  of  the  Commission  the  most  popular  of  all  the  public  holdings.  Over  100,000 
persons  have  enjoyed  the  privileges  of  this  reservation  in  a  single  day.  The  cost  of  the 
reservation  for  land  and  construction,  to  1900,  is  $1,650,000. 

The  Middlesex  Fells  Reservation. — This  tract  of  forest,  containing  800  hectares  (2,000 
acres)  of  land,  exclusive  of  the  extensive  holdings  of  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board,  lies 
upon  the  escarpment  of  the  northern  range  of  hills  which  bound  the  Boston  basin.  It  is 
surrounded  by  the  towns  of  Stoneham,  Woburn,  Winchester,  Medford,  Maiden,  and  Melrose, 
where  its  steep  hills  kept  at  bay  the  advance  of  the  housebuilder  until  just  before  its  acqui- 
sition by  the  Commission.  This  reservation,  like  all  the  other  holdings  of  the  Board,  with 
the  exception  of  the  Revere  Beach  Reservation,  has  been  kept  in  its  natural  state,  so  far 
as  extensive  improvements  of  roads  or  the  installation  of  shelters  and  other  conveniences 
for  the  public  are  concerned.  A  superintendent  and  a  force  of  five  policemen,  and  an  average 
of  a  dozen  laborers,  are  able  to  maintain  order  and  to  carry  on  such  constructions  upon 
roads,  buildings  and  fences  as  are  required  from  time  to  time.  The  force  of  laborers  is 
often  increased  during  the  winter,  to  undertake  forest  improvements  of  a  limited  kind. 
Fire  patrols  are  maintained  during  spring  and  autumn,  to  notify  headquarters  of  the  out- 
break of  fires  in  the  reservation  or  upon  its  borders.  The  present  generation  is  as  much 
concerned  to  preserve  the  forest  tracts  now  remaining  to  it  as  the  first  generation  of  colon- 
ists was  interested  to  destroy  them  for  the  advantage  of  agriculture  and  building.  The 
protection  and  care  that  is  devoted  to  the  forest  cover  of  the  Fells  is  extended  to  all  the 
reservations.  As  regards  the  forest  trees  in  the  various  Metropolitan  parks,  their  variety 
and  distribution  is  essentially  the  same  in  the  Fells  as  in  the  other  reservations.  The  sum- 
mits of  the  rocky  hills  support  a  stunted  growth  of  pine,  cedar,  birch,  scrub-oak,  juniper, 
barberry  and  other  plants  enduring  poor  soil  and  great  exposure.  The  hill  slopes  are  usually 
clad  in  a  coppice  of  oak  and  hickory,  with  here  and  there  a  colony  of  chestnut,  pine  or 
poplar.  These  trees  are  survivors  from  the  ancient  wood-lots  of  the  community,  whose 
ownership  of  the  land  preceded  the  Commissioners'  takings.  Trees  upon  the  lower  land 
are  often  of  large  size,  and  frequently  include  elms  which  indicate  the  sites  of  old  farms, 
in  whose  immediate  neighborhood  trees  suffer  less  severe  treatment  than  upon  the  hills. 
The  great  oaks  in  the  Beaver  Brook  Reservation  are  examples  of  trees  preserved  by  ancient 
landholders  for  the  mere  love  of  them  near  home  grounds.  The  Middlesex  Fells  Reser- 
vation possesses  a  treasure  in  its  pond  scenery  which  is  not  to  be  matched  in  any  of  the 
other  reservations,  and  which  goes  far  to  make  amends  for  the  small  size  of  the  hills  as 
compared  with  the  semi-mountainous  heights  of  the  Blue  Hills  Reservation.  These 
water  areas  are  controlled  by  the  Metropolitan  Water  Board,  which  has  done  much  to 
preserve  their  natural  aspect,  while  pursuing  extensive  changes  in  their  outline  for  the 
purposes  of  increased  water-storage  capacity.  The  cost  of  the  Middlesex  Fells  Reser- 
vation for  lands  and  maintenance,  to  1900,  was  $870,000. 

Metropolitan  Boston  profits  in  1900  by  the  plan  of  settlement  which  the  topography 
of  the  district  has  relentlessly  forced  upon  it  since  the  first  frontiersman  built  his  cabin 
in  1630.  Sterile  and  harborless  ocean  shores,  unstable  and  unhealthy  river  and  brook 
banks  and  unsurmountable  hills,  have  been  blamed  and  fought  generation  after  generation 
because  they  could  not  be  adapted  to  the  requirements  of  trade  and  house-building.  But 
today,  when  traffic  and  the  walls  of  buildings  threaten  the  life  of  the  community,  the 
plan  of  nature  has  become  a  resource.    It  is  upon  the  ground  forbidden  to  the  trader  and 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  65 

the  builder  that  enough  of  forest,  meadow,  sunlight  and  water  have  been  found  to  save 
from  extinction  and  to  preserve  for  present  necessity  something  of  the  beauty  and  life- 
giving  qualities  of  the  original  forest  mantle,  the  original  meadows  and  early  pastures,  the 
pure  waters  and  the  untroubled  horizons  of  the  first  civilization. 


A   VISIT   TO   PARIS 

By    HAROLD    A.    CAPARN 

(Meetine  of  November  14.  1905) 

WHEN  we  get  beyond  the  province  of  the  landscape  architect  and  into  that 
of  the  architect  we  must  be  able  to  meet  him  on  his  own  ground,  and,  if  neces- 
sary, step  well  over  the  half-way  line,  to  take  his  point  of  view  and  discuss 
with  him  in  his  own  language;  for,  as  the  office  of  the  landscape  architect  is  to  compose 
all  the  materials  on  the  territory  under  his  control,  the  house,  as  one  of  the  details  of 
the  composition,  should  bear  tokens  of  the  suggestion  of  the  landscape  architect,  or  at 
least  of  his  approval.  We  do  not,  necessarily,  have  to  be  able  to  build  a  house,  but  at 
least  we  should  be  able  to  criticize  it. 

I  lived  very  close  to  the  Luxembourg  Gardens,  and  in  times  out  of  hours  I  found 
a  great  deal  of  amusement  and  some  instruction  in  observing  things  there.  The  one  thing 
that  struck  me  was  the  admirable  order  in  which  the  Paris  parks  and  gardens  were  kept, 
and  the  orderly  behavior  of  the  people  who  used  them.  Of  course,  the  poeple  in  the  Lux- 
embourg Gardens  go  there  in  very  large  numbers  at  most  times,  and  in  immense  crowds 
on  Sundays  and  holidays.  They  never  appear  to  stray  from  the  walks  or  places  provided 
for  them  to  walk  on,  and  they  actually  seem  to  be  able  to  regard  grass  as  a  piece  of  pure  de- 
coration, just  like  a  piece  of  tapestry  or  a  flower-bed — not  a  thing  to  be  walked  upon.  From 
my  experience  in  this  country,  everybody  thinks  it  must  be  walked  upon,  and  any  attempt 
to  fence  it  off,  or  to  put  up  a  "keep-ofF-the-grass"  sign,  is  an  infringement  of  public  rights. 
I  suppose,  sometime,  we  shall  educate  our  public  up  to  conforming  to  the  same  idea. 

One  thing  I  remember,  in  the  Luxembourg  Gardens  and  in  all  the  parks  of  Paris 
and  wherever  I  went,  was  their  way  of  using  the  flower-beds  and  bedding  plants,  partic- 
ularly in  the  naturalistic  parts  of  the  park.  I  suppose  it  is  popular,  maybe  beautiful, 
but  I  don't  think  everybody  in  this  room  would  think  it  entirely  beautiful.  They  make 
beautiful  lawns  and  they  keep  them  beautifully,  and  everything  is  trimmed  as  neatly  as 
possible;  then  they  make  a  sort  of  tumor  in  the  lawn,  and  put  a  flower-bed  on  it  always 
of  the  same  oval  shape,  and  very  often  planted  with  great  ingenuity  and  variety  of  material 
in  bedding  plants.  That  is  the  point  that  struck  me  as  rather  out  of  character  with  the 
usual  French  good  taste  and  instinct  for  what  is  appropriate. 

The  Luxembourg  Gardens  are  interesting  for  many  reasons,  partly  because  they 
give  examples  of  almost  every  phase  of  gardening  as  it  is  looked  at  by  French  eyes.  There 
are  formal  gardening  and  informal  gardening,  terraces,  balustrades,  steps,  statuary,  trees 
planted  in  the  quincunx  arrangement,  avenues  trimmed  to  a  vertical  line  to  two-thirds 
the  height  of  the  trees,  and  nearly  everything  you  can  think  of.  I  can  hardly  think  of  any- 
thing, in  a  general  way,  that  is  not  to  be  found  there.  There  are  long  beds  in  front  of  the 
palace  which  are  used,  not  for  the  sake  of  the  flowers,  but  like  friezes  or  bands  of  pure 


66  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

decoration,  and  the  planting  of  these  I  found  of  decided  interest.  I  suppose  M.  Vacherot, 
who  runs  all  these  things,  gave  a  general  superintendence  to  them,  but  he  certainly  did 
not  go  into  many  particulars.  They  seemed  to  be  planted  with  a  view  to  obtaining  a  gen- 
eral effect  of  gaiety  and  glow  of  color,  and  they  certainly  did  have  it  to  an  admirable 
extent.  They  don't  care  much  what  colors  come  together,  or  what  kinds  of  foliage  come 
together,  as  we  do  in  America,  where  we  would  think  it  a  very  serious  matter  if  we  should 
see  purple  phlox  with  scarlet  geraniums  near  it.  In  this  kind  of  work,  the  French 
authorities  do  not  seem  to  regard  trifles  like  small  errors  in  color,  and  so  long  as  they  get  a 
general  effect  which  has  its  influence  on  the  whole  surrounding  and  general  scheme,  they  are 
satisfied.  I  took  down  some  planting  schemes  in  some  of  these  beds,  and  will  see  if  I  cannot 
decipher  one  or  two  of  them  for  you,  as  it  might  be  of  interest  in  a  general  way: 

Here  are  six  meters  of  flower-bedding  about  seven  feet  wide.  Six  meters,  of  course, 
is  about  twenty  feet — less  than  twenty  feet.  Down  the  middle  is  a  miscellaneous  collec- 
tion of  things:  California  privet,  tall  fuschias,  altheas,  herbaceous  sunflowers,  pelargon- 
iums, six  feet  high,  planted  without  any  particular  arrangement.  On  each  edge  is  a  line 
of  scarlet  geraniums.  Between,  is  a  mixture  of  almost  anything:  Yellow  and  crimson 
coleus,  gladioli,  Rudbeckia  hirta,  ageratum,  white  geranium,  monarda,  white  phlox, 
etc.  It  is  no  use  giving  you  the  exact  order,  because  there  is  no  exact  order.  Any  old 
order  does,  but  the  important  thing  about  it  is  that,  generally  speaking,  it  all  looks  well, 
and  it  makes  a  gorgeous  variety  of  color  which,  I  suppose,  is  beautiful  from  the  archi- 
tect's point  of  view.  Flowers  don't  matter  a  bit,  but  the  general  scheme  of  decoration 
is  thoroughly  good  and  effective.  As  for  the  colors,  their  indifference  to  some  people's 
notions  of  color-schemes  is  remarkable.  I  was  very  much  surprised  to  find  about  one 
hundred  and  fifty  yards  of  scarlet  and  pink  geraniums  planted  between  the  trees  in  the 
Avenue  de  1'Observatoire,  which  some  of  you  will  no  doubt  remember — beds  about  seven 
feet  wide  with  enough  geraniums  to  fill  them  for  about  one  hundred  and  fifty  yards,  and 
yet  it  really  was  very  effective.  Ever  since  that  I  have  had  a  good  deal  of  respect  for  the 
geranium,  more  than  I  ever  had  before.  I  have  had  a  period  in  my  mental  development 
when  I  was  inclined  to  despise  bedding  plants,  but  I  now  think  they  are  as  good  material 
for  decoration  as  anything  else,  and  will  produce  effects  that  cannot  be  produced  with 
anything  else. 

The  other  parks  in  Paris  are  very  interesting,  but  they  do  not  contain  many  features, 
I  think,  on  which  I  can  make  any  extended  remarks  of  interest.  The  most  interesting 
is  the  Pare  des  Buttes  Chaumont,  and  there,  again,  if  you  happen  to  go  on  a  Sunday, 
it  is  perfectly  marvelous  to  see  the  gardens  and  the  people  there,  and  the  way  in  which 
they  respect  the  park,  and  the  way  they  keep  off  the  grass,  and  don't  tear  down  the  trees 
or  flowers.  I  suppose,  if  we  work  hard  enough  and  long  enough,  we  shall  get  our  public 
into  a  similar  frame  of  mind  some  of  these  days.  I  spent  a  good  deal  of  time  in  going  to 
other  places — of  course,  Versailles.  I  went  there  several  times  and  arrived  at  conclusions 
which  are,  probably,  more  or  less  heretical.  I  don't  know  what  landscape  architects  think 
about  Versailles,  because  I  hardly  ever  talked  to  any  of  them  about  it;  but  the  general 
opinion  among  architects  is  that  Versailles  is  something  beyond  which  it  is  impossible 
to  go.  To  me,  while  you  can't  help  admiring  its  magnificence  and  its  splendid  adaptation 
to  its  purpose  as  a  setting  to  the  Court  of  Louis  XIV,  or  as  a  work  of  art,  it  is  a  thing, 
in  many  ways,  which  should  not  be.  In  the  first  place,  instead  of  being  as  inexpensive  as 
possible, — which  I  think,  in  a  general  way,  any  kind  of  work  of  art  should  be, — it  was 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  67 

made  as  expensive  as  possible.  The  whole  scene  seems  to  reek  of  the  tyranny  of  the 
times  and  the  Iavishness  of  the  Court  of  Louis  XIV,  from  the  details  inside  the  building 
to  the  outside  of  the  old  barracks  of  a  palace  itself.  The  gardens  themselves  seem  to  me  to 
be  adapted  to  nothing  whatever  except  the  purpose  for  which  they  were  created.  They 
lack  repose,  sympathy,  and  almost  everything  else  except  splendor  and  magnificence, 
and  when  you  wander  for  a  few  hours  about  these  interminable  straight  avenues,  and 
see  nothing  but  straight  avenues  with  a  fountain  at  the  intersection  and  in  all  directions 
the  same  old  straight  avenues,  with  the  splendid  monotony  that  architects  claim  for 
them,  you  really  wonder  if  something  else  less  expensive  were  not  possible.  And  then, 
perhaps,  you  wander  in  the  Petit  Trianon  and  the  Hameau,  and  think  what  a  relief  it 
is  to  get  in  the  English  Garden,  which  is  more  or  less  like  Central  Park,  and  think  how 
poor  little  Marie  Antoinette  must  have  enjoyed  the  escape  from  the  palace  to  the  Grand 
Trianon,  and  from  the  Grand  Trianon  to  the  Petit  Trianon  and  her  little  dairy-farm 
with  its  water-wheel  and  three-hundred-pound  miller,  where  she  sold  butter  and  cheese 
and  eggs  to  the  Court  ladies,  and  where  she  could  take  two  inches  off  her  heels  and  a  little 
of  the  gorgeousness  and  ceremony  off  her  state  gowns,  and  go  into  her  cottage  and  play 
at  playing,  as  she  did,  according  to  history. 

But  it  is  only  fair  to  the  great  Lenotre  to  say  that  there  are  at  least  two  occasions 
when  Versailles  seems  to  be  worth  its  cost — when  the  fountains  are  playing  and  for  half 
an  hour  before  sunset.  The  gardens  are  quite  incomplete  without  the  fountains,  which 
seem  to  vitalize  the  whole  composition  and  show  what  was  the  conception  that  arose 
in  the  imagination  of  its  creator.  And  the  sun  seeming  about  to  sink  into  the  lake,  as  you 
can  see  it  from  the  upper  terrace,  adds  an  atmosphere  and  mystery  to  the  setting  of  vast 
green  walls  and  statuary  and  water  that  makes  the  whole  scene  one  of  the  most  poetic 
I  have  ever  seen  anywhere.  The  sun  is,  at  least,  as  indispensable  a  part  of  the  scheme 
as  the  fountains;  and  perhaps  Lenotre  intended,  in  a  spirit  of  superb  flattery  of  his  master, 
Louis  XIV,  whose  emblem  was  the  sun,  to  take  the  actual  sun  itself  as  the  dominant 
motive  of  his  design. 

I  think  I  was  fortunate  in  discovering  a  place  near  Paris  that  is  not  known  to  very 
many  people;  perhaps  many  of  you  here  have  never  heard  of  Meudon.  It  is  a  place  near 
St.  Cloud  and  Sevres  where  there  used  to  be  a  palace,  and  there  are  now  the  remains  of 
magnificent  gardens  with  an  orangery  and  some  very  high  terraces.  The  building  itself 
has  been  made  into  an  observatory,  and  I  don't  think  it  is  known  to  many  people;  but, 
if  you  want  a  grand  scheme  full  of  air,  with  a  thorough  development  of  the  means  at  hand, 
I  would  recommend  anybody  who  has  the  opportunity  to  go  to  Meudon.  It  certainly  gains 
a  great  deal  from  the  fact  that  it  was  built  in  a  very  uneven  country  with  magnificent  views 
over  Paris.    At  present,  it  is  in  a  very  dilapidated  state,  but  it  is  well  worth  going  to  see. 

There  is  also  a  very  fine  park  at  Compiegne,  laid  out  on  a  very  big  and  magnificent 
scale,  with  immense  gayety  and  color  in  bedding  plants,  which,  again,  seem  to  be  put 
in  to  please  popular  taste.  Popular  taste  over  there  likes  color.  They  don't  care  what  it 
is,  or  where  it  is,  so  long  as  they  get  lots  of  it.  That  is  the  conclusion  I  came  to  in  noting 
the  gorgeous  array  of  bedding  plants. 

In  all  their  park  and  garden  work,  as  well  as  in  their  architecture,  the  French  feeling, 
the  French  taste,  the  French  point  of  view,  and  French  technique  are  manifest.  They  always 
know  what  they  want  to  do  and  how  to  do  it.  There  is  a  splendid  sureness  about  all  their 
work.    They  have  an  eye  for  line  and  for  balance  and  symmetry  which  is  not  to  be  sur- 


68  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

passed.  Whether  they  are  placing  a  relief  on  a  wall  or  laying  down  the  lines  of  a  drive- 
way in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne  with  a  border  of  rough  stones,  there  is  always  a  sweep  about 
it,  a  feeling  for  grace  and  propriety  and  what  I  might  call  esthetic  logic  that  shows  them 
to  be  professional  artists  to  the  backbone — not  amateurs.  They  are  always  logical,  too  logi- 
cal, perhaps,  in  fact.  After  a  while  a  certain  tedium  begins  to  show  itself  through  the 
fascination,  and  we  begin  to  wonder  whether  Paris  could  not,  in  time,  actually  become 
monotonous,  if  it  were  not  for  the  work  done  before  the  High  Renaissance,  the  glorious 
churches  and  the  astonishing  chateaux  beginning  with  Blois  and  Chambord.  I  read  some- 
where the  other  day  that  Diderot  says  that  the  French  judge  everything  with  their  head. 
This  is  true,  and  truer  now  than  then.  They  must  be  logical,  and  they  don't  know  how  to 
make  successful  mistakes.  They  seem  unable  to  feel  the  charm  of  unreasonableness,  and 
there  is  a  certain  coldness  and  lack  of  vitality  about  their  work  in  consequence. 

We  consider  Paris  the  art-center  of  the  world,  and  send  our  promising  young  men 
and  women  in  swarms  to  be  made  over  and  polished  up  so  that  students  there  are  now 
divided  into  two  classes:  The  others  and  the  Americans  who  seem  to  be  taking  more 
than  their  share  of  the  honors.  Some  of  them  come  back  and  directly  or  indirectly  are 
the  cause  of  many  deplorable  things — acres  of  gross  and  blatant  stone  work  in  this  very 
town  in  which  the  French  crudity  and  coarseness  is  exaggerated,  and  its  grace  and  fineness 
omitted.  But  our  best  fellows  seem  to  me  to  go  there  and  absorb  most  of  what  is  best 
in  French  design,  and  to  come  back  and  produce  stuff  that,  after  all,  is  American.  As 
we  are  a  composite  race,  made  up  of  people  from  almost  all  countries,  and  are  yet  devel- 
oping a  national  type,  I  hope  in  time  that  we  shall  take  the  best  we  can  find  from  other 
countries,  and,  through  our  own  consciousness,  develop  it  into  an  art,  that  will  be,  perhaps, 
better  than  any  of  them  and  truly  national. 

In  the  subsequent  discussion  Mr.  Parsons  said  that  M.  Vacherot  was  apologetic  for  most  of  the 
Paris  parks;  he  seemed  to  think  that  they  sacrifice  too  much  to  giving  the  French  people  what  they  want. 
In  an  experience  of  twenty-five  years  in  the  parks,  Mr.  Parsons  had  come  to  believe  that  the  people  do 
not  require  bedding.    He  did  not  remember  one  letter  asking  for  it. 

Mr.  Caparn  said  that  everything  was  done  with  a  French  touch,  and  looks  better  than  the  same 
thing  would  here.  For  instance,  shrubberies  bordered  with  lines  of  bedding  plants  so  arranged  as  to  give  a 
firm  line  on  the  lawn  and  to  merge  into  the  mass  of  foliage  behind.  It  looks  stiff  and  bad,  but  neat  and  gay. 
Gorgeous  color-effects  gained  everywhere  by  oval  flower-beds  made  in  tumors  on  the  lawn,  well  done  in 
themselves,  but  making  it  difficult  to  find  a  well-balanced  subject  for  the  camera.  All  partly  redeemed  by 
the  invincible  French  instinct  for  technique,  the  power  to  foresee  a  result,  and  get  it  with  a  sure  touch. 
This  is  found  in  the  lines  of  roads,  the  cement  borders  of  the  lake  in  Buttes  Chaumont  park,  and  every- 
where else.  The  most  varied  and  interesting  park  is  that  of  Buttes  Chaumont.  Before  the  forties  it  was  a 
disused  stone  quarry,  the  resort  of  criminals  and  other  unpleasant  people. 

Mr.  Leavitt  said  that  the  Luxembourg  Gardens  were  mainly  children's  playgrounds.  There  are  heavy 
shade  trees,  mainly  horse-chestnuts,  with  gravel  and  sand  underneath,  so  that  children  can  dig  and  play 
in  the  shade.  The  waterfall  in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne  is  a  pretty  good  bluff,  the  only  way  to  make  one  if 
there  had  to  be  a  waterfall  there. 

Mr.  Greenleaf  kept  his  eyes  open  in  Paris  for  good  work,  and  found  it  strangely  absent.  Paris  is  a  good 
place  to  study  design  in  general,  but  the  particular  kind  of  design  used  by  landscape  architects  is  conspic- 
uous by  its  absence. 

Mr.  Olmsted  was  told  by  M.  Andre  of  a  scheme  of  decorating  the  great  walls  of  rocks  in  the  Buttes 
Chaumont  with  rock-plants  in  little  pockets,  excavated.  After  a  few  years  they  were  all  crowded  out  by 
English  ivy,  probably  with  a  better  effect.  The  logic  of  the  French  mind  does  not  show  in  the  waterfall 
in  the  Bois  de  Boulogne.   The  water  falls  from  a  kind  of  rock  built  up  artificially. 

Mr.  Langton  thought  that  the  Paris  parks  were  not  designed  to  have  the  masses  of  bedding-plants 
one  sees  there. 


COST  OF  LANDSCAPE  DEVELOPMENT 

By    CHAS.    W.    LEAVITT,    JR. 

(Meeting  of  December  12.  1905) 

INASMUCH  as  the  expenses  connected  with  the  development  of  the  landscape  are 
so  varied,  it  is  necessary  to  particularize  in  order  to  give  information  that  may  be 
interesting,  without  becoming  tiresome. 

I  will  therefore  endeavor  to  answer  the  question  which  is  perhaps  the  most  familiar 
to  those  in  our  profession,  as  the  most  interesting  way  of  opening  the  subject  for  healthy 
discussion. 

The  question  may  be  put  as  follows:  "How  much  will  it  cost  to  develop  fifty  acres 
of  farm  land  located  about  two  miles  from  a  railroad  station,  which  is  about  thirty  miles 
from  New  York  City,  in  the  State  of  New  York,  and  to  put  upon  it  all  reasonable  features 
for  comfort,  beauty  and  enjoyment." 

Numerous  questions  and  the  inspection  of  the  property  developed  the  following 
information: 

The  land  is  high  (about  one  hundred  and  fifty  feet  above  the  railroad  station),  about 
two-thirds  meadow,  and  fairly  sprinkled  with  boulders  and  fenced  with  tumbled-down 
stone  walls.  Approximately,  one-third  is  woodland,  the  trees  being  good-sized  beeches, 
chestnuts,  oaks,  hickories,  dogwoods,  etc.  There  are  two  streams,  one  small  and  origi- 
nating in  a  spring  upon  the  property,  and  the  other  a  good-sized  brook  with  its  source 
about  two  miles  above  the  property.  The  first  stream  had  a  fall  of  some  fifteen  feet  in 
two  hundred,  and  flowed  at  the  rate  of  about  20,000  gallons  a  day. 

The  site  for  the  house  is  on  the  southern  edge  of  the  woodland,  from  which  point 
there  is  a  good  view  of  the  countryside.  The  ground  rises  in  the  woods  to  the  north  to 
an  elevation  of  about  twenty-five  feet  above  the  house-site.    It  was  desired  to  construct: 

A  house  at  a  cost  not  to  exceed $50,000  00 

A  stable  for  not  more  than 1 0,000  00 

Greenhouses  for  about 5,000  00 

Gardener's  cottage,  poultry-houses,  cow-  and  sheep-barns,  collectively  to  cost  about  ..     8,000  00 

Or  a  total  for  buildings  of $73,000  00 

These  requirements  seemed  to  call  for,  first,  a  driveway  leading  from  the  highway 
to  the  residence,  and  from  there  to  the  stable  and  so  on  to  the  group  of  farm-buildings, 
which  added  up  to  some  three  thousand  lineal  feet.  The  drive  was  designed  14  feet 
wide  with  4-foot  sod  gutters  on  either  side,  with  catch-basins  located  every  200  feet,  the 
basins  to  be  connected  with  6-inch  pipe  with  the  8-inch  drain  carrying  the  leader  water 
from  the  house  and  drainage  from  the  garden. 

The  cost  of  grading  this  road  was  67  cents  per  lineal  foot,  including  the  saving  of 

all  topsoil,  amounting  to $2,000  00 

The  telford,  8  inches  deep,  cost  $1  per  square  yard,  aggregating 4,500  00 

The  40  catch-basins,  at  $15  each 600  00 

The  sodding  of  the  gutters  cost  30  cents  per  square  yard,  or  360  00 

And  4,000  feet  of  pipe,  at  40  cents  per  foot,  laid 1 ,600  00 

Or  a  total  of $9,060  00 

(69) 


7o  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

The  boulders  that  were  encountered  were  broken  up  and  used  for  the  telford,  and 
the  cracked  stone  was  shipped  in  on  the  railroad. 
The  question  of  water  was  handled  as  follows: 

A  50,000-gaIIon  cypress  tank  was  located  upon  the  hill  in  the  woods.    Cost  of  tank .  .  $800  00 

Cost  of  foundations 200  00 

Water  was  pumped  into  this  tank  by  two  Rife  rams  which  cost,  set  up 500  00 

A  windmill   to  pump  the  water  which  escaped   from  the   rams,   and   used   as   an 

auxiliary ;oo  00 

Preparation  of  spring 200  00 

Pipe  from  rams  and  windmill  to  tanks,  and  from  tank  to  buildings 1,000  00 

Water-works  complete $3,200  00 

for  supplying  an  average  of  2,500  gallons  of  water  per  day. 

The  sewage  from  the  house  was  taken  care  of  by  a  septic  tank  discharging  inter- 
mittently into  a  system  of  sub-surface  irrigation  pipes  at  a  cost  of  $1,000. 

As  little  lawn  space  was  desired,  there  was  little  grading.  The  cultivation  and  prepa- 
ration of  the  lawns  immediately  about  the  house  was  done  at  a  cost  of  $300. 

A  formal  terrace  garden  was  constructed,  the  walls  being  built  of  dry  masonry  with 
the  exception  of  a  small  portion  which  carried  a  balustrade.    In  the  garden  there  were 

1,000  cubic  yards  of  dry  masonry,  costing $2,000  00 

300  cubic  yards  of  wet  masonry 1 ,800  00 

300  lineal  feet  of  balustrade 2,000  00 

4  sets  of  steps  (cut  granite) 1,200  00 

2  fountains 2,000  00 

Plumbing 500  00 

Drainage 200  00 

One-third  of  an  acre  developed  for  planting,  top-soil  being  put  in  to  a  depth  of  2  feet.  1,000  00 

Paths  of  common  brick 1 ,000  00 

Plants,  trees  and  planting 1 ,200  00 

4  marble  benches 600  00 

4  marble  figures 800  00 

Marble  sundial 200  00 

Making  a  total  for  the  garden  of $14,500  00 

A  tennis-court  was  constructed  at  a  cost  of  $250  (earth  surface,  drained  with  stone 
laid  similar  to  the  foundation  of  a  telford  road,  with  cinder  and  earth  covering).  A  swimming- 
pool,  25  by  50  feet,  lined  with  white  enamel  brick  and  coped  with  marble,  with  marble 
steps  and  a  house  for  shower  baths,  including  heating  and  filtering  apparatuses,  were 
constructed  at  a  cost  of  $6,000;  a  bowling-green  was  made  at  a  cost  of  $200. 

General  plantations  were  made  in  which  500  trees  were  used,  at  a  cost  of  $1,500, 
and  2,000  shrubs,  costing  $500,  with  3,000  feet  of  hemlock  hedge,  were  planted  at  a  cost 
of  $1,200.  Construction  of  a  vegetable-garden  amounted  to  $500,  and  2,500  feet  of  stone 
walls,  as  fences,  were  built  at  a  cost  of  $2,500.  Three  entrance  gateways  were  built  at  an 
aggregate  cost  of  $3,000. 

Fifteen  acres  were  planted  in  permanent  pasture,  the  ground  being  plowed  and 
fertilized,  at  a  cost  of  $1,000.  Five  acres  were  planted  in  fruit-orchard,  there  being  about 
two  hundred  trees,  at  a  total  cost  of  $300.  A  dam  in  the  large  stream  was  constructed 
and  a  lake  formed,  at  a  cost  of  $1,000. 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  71 

The  whole  cost  of  the  landscape  development,  outside  of  buildings,  amounted  to  a 
total  of  $46,010,  which  included  a  10  per  cent  professional  fee.  This  sum  is  about  one- 
half  the  cost  of  the  buildings.  The  proportion  of  one-half  the  cost  of  the  buildings  is,  I 
think,  an  important  matter  for  discussion  and  consideration,  as  upon  it  may  depend 
the  decision  of  a  prospective  client  as  to  living  out-of-town.  One  scarcely  realizes  the 
difference  between  the  country  and  the  city  until  taught  by  experience.  It  has  always 
seemed  to  me  that  people  going  into  the  country  should  contemplate  an  interest  there 
which  would  make  them  independent  of  the  city  for  amusement.  This  may,  of  course, 
be  had  in  a  greater  or  less  degree;  but  one  who  goes  into  the  country,  and  yet  looks  to 
the  city  for  his  amusement,  is  taking  a  great  risk.  The  construction  of  a  house  is  finished 
very  rapidly,  but  not  so  the  grounds,  which  one  may  say  can  never  be  entirely  completed, 
and  may  afford  much  pleasure  in  the  development  as  well  as  in  finished  results,  if  they 
are  planned  for  an  ultimate  effect  and  executed  in  a  substantial  manner,  and  not  too  fast. 
The  annual  cost  may  thus  be  distributed  over  a  sufficient  period  of  time  so  as  not  to  be 
burdensome,  and  one  may  contemplate  the  expenditure  of  a  large  amount  with  less 
hesitancy. 

The  foregoing  figures  may  seem  high  in  some  respects  and  low  in  others.  This  may 
be  accounted  for  by  the  local  conditions,  which,  of  course,  vary  with  every  piece  of  work; 
so  it  might  be  well  to  add  to  the  above  figures  in  making  estimates,  if  one  wishes  to  be 
on  the  safe  side. 

In  the  event  of  the  work  being  done  at  a  greater  distance  from  New  York,  where 
labor  may  be  secured  at  lower  rates,  and  less  rock  encountered,  reductions  can  be  made 
from  the  costs  given. 

These  figures  are  based  upon  laborers  at  $1.65  per  day;  double  teams,  $4.50  per  day; 
single  horse,  cart  and  driver,  $3.50;  masons,  $4.20;  foremen,  $5;  planters,  $4,  and  upon 
rock  amounting  to  20  per  cent  of  the  excavation. 

The  professional  compensation  would  seem  fair  at  10  per  cent  for  work  done  within 
a  reasonable  time.  Should  the  time  be  extended  beyond,  say,  three  years,  and  a  little 
done  each  year,  a  larger  commission  should  be  paid. 

In  the  subsequent  discussion  Mr.  Leavitt  said  that  the  whole  vegetable-garden  was  built,  drained, 
and  piped  for  hose  for  $500.  Extra  cost  was  due  to  the  pergola  and  to  fussing  with  the  work  after  it 
was  finished.  The  water-supply  is  an  important  element  of  comfort  in  a  country  place,  and  should  be 
included  by  the  landscape  man  in  his  work.  Mr.  Leavitt  said  that  the  value  of  his  paper  was  in  the 
discussion   it   would   elicit. 

Mr.  Langton  found  Mr.  Leavitt's  paper  interesting,  but  answers  the  question  of  cost  in  a  too  final 
way.  The  cost  depends  on  the  character  of  the  work.  A  scale  of  local  costs  is  desirable.  He  found  that 
parks  could  not  be  built  for  $1,000  an  acre.  The  cost  of  improvements  on  his  own  place  were  about  $1,000 
an  acre  for  1,000  feet  of  road  and  a  simple  little  garden.  The  cost  of  Hudson  County  Parks,  New  Jersey, 
was  nearer  $2,000  than  $1,000  an  acre. 

Mr.  Parsons  had  found  that  general  landscape  work  cost  about  $1,000  an  acre.  The  contract  for  the 
first  half  of  a  city  park  of  thirty  acres  was  $141,000.  Morningside  Park  cost  $250,000  for  blasting  only.  Mr. 
Parsons  considered  it  better  to  lose  work  than  give  the  idea  that  you  would  do  it  cheaply. 

Mr.  Vaux  found  that  the  cost  of  work  in  the  Catskills  came  to  very  near  Mr.  Leavitt's  figures.  He 
considered  work  of  this  kind  done  to  better  advantage  by  the  day.  It  was  too  indefinite  in  character  for 
contracting. 

Mr.  Lowrie  said  that  the  cost  of  development  depended  on  the  cost  and  style  of  the  house.  The 
cost  per  acre  for  the  grounds  of  a  $20,000  house  would  probably  be  much  less  than  for  those  of  a  $50,000 
or  $100,000  house. 


DESCRIPTION   OF   A    DESIGN   FOR   WEST    SIDE 
PARK,    JERSEY   CITY,  N.  J. 

By    CHARLES    N.    LOWRIE    and    DANIEL    W.   LANGTON,  Associated    Landscape    Architects 
(Meetintr  of  February  6.  1906) 

IN  determining  what  should  be  the  leading  motive  in  a  plan  for  the  new  West  Side 
Park  lands,  we  were  guided  by  what  we  believed  to  be  the  correct  answer  to  the 

question:  "What  kind  of  park  thus  situated  would  satisfy  the  needs  of  the  greatest 
number  of  its  possible  users  ?  " 

A  detailed  study  of  the  character  of  the  population  which  this  park  is  intended  to 
serve,  with  a  view  to  ascertaining  these  needs,  would  lead  us  far  afield;  and  as  the  object 
of  this  report  is  to  describe  our  plan  for  West  Side  Park,  we  will  omit  the  process  by  which 
we  have  reached  our  conclusions  and  simply  summarize  them,  and  then  proceed  to  a 
consideration  of  the  plan  itself. 

Briefly,  then,  we  have  in  Hudson  County  a  community  of  some  500,000  people,  which 
it  is  predicted,  will  be  a  million  inside  of  a  generation.  This  great  population  is  engaged, 
for  the  most  part,  in  confining  industrial  pursuits,  housed  in  streets  and  blocks  closely 
built  up;  and  having,  furthermore,  on  account  of  the  close  proximity  of  adjoining  cities  and 
the  peculiar  geographical  conditions,  literally  no  open  country  within  walking  distance. 

In  the  immediate  community  which  the  park  will  serve — that  is,  all  of  Jersey  City 
with  parts  of  Hoboken  and  Bayonne — over  half  of  this  population  lives;  and  the  conditions 
just  outlined  are  here  most  acute.  No  community  ever  stood  more  in  need  of  a  public 
park  of  the  kind  which  we  have  endeavored  to  design — one  in  which  the  primary  purpose 
from  start  to  finish  shall  be  to  offer  rest  and  recreation. 

West  Side  Park,  on  account  of  its  size  and  central  location,  will  be  the  most  impor- 
tant park  of  the  Hudson  County  system,  occupying  the  same  relation  to  the  other  parks 
that  Central  Park  in  New  York  and  Prospect  Park  in  Brooklyn  respectively  do  in  their 
communities.  It  would,  therefore,  seem  highly  desirable  that  it  be  made  as  beautiful 
as  possible.  In  our  planning  we  have  had  this  as  an  important  secondary  motive.  This 
has  not  been  permitted  to  interfere  in  the  least,  however,  with  the  idea  of  a  thoroughly 
useful  park,  where,  as  we  have  just  said,  rest  and  recreation  shall  have  first  place.  Our 
plan  provides  for  a  great  abundance  and  a  great  variety  of  areas  where  almost  every 
healthy  outdoor  recreation  may  be  enjoyed.  These  features  will  be  referred  to  as  we 
proceed  with  a  detailed  description  of  our  design. 

Referring  now  directly  to  the  plan,  it  will  be  seen  that  by  means  of  continuous  drives, 
paths,  and  plantations,  and  a  careful  grading  off  of  one  type  of  ground  surface  into  the 
next,  that  the  park  has  been  kept  a  compact  unit  from  the  Hudson  County  Boulevard 
to  the  Hackensack  River,  and  from  Duncan  Avenue  on  the  north  to  Communipaw  Avenue 
on  the  south.  Each  part  bears  a  distinct  relation  to  the  part  next  to  it,  and  to  the  effect 
as  a  whole.  At  the  same  time,  some  parts  are  very  different  from  others  in  design  and 
function,  and,  broadly  speaking,  the  park  may  be  divided  into  three  parts,  the  purpose 
of  each  being  quite  distinct. 

The  first  division  may  be  said  to  extend  from  the  Hudson  County  Boulevard  to  the 
brow  of  the  hill  some  800  feet  west  of  West  Side  Avenue.   It  is  treated  in  a  formal  manner. 

(72) 


GENERAL  PLAN 

EST  °  SIDE- 

HVDSON  COVNTY 
NEW  JERSEY 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF   LANDSCAPE   ARCHITECTS  73 

The  second  extends  from  this  point  to  the  low  lands  at  Marcy  Avenue  projected.  It  is 
treated  in  a  naturalistic  way.  The  third  from  this  point  to  the  Hackensack  River.  This 
division  provides  a  naturalistic  lake  and  a  great  grassy  field  for  recreation. 

Commencing,  then,  at  the  Boulevard,  we  enter  the  park  lands  through  a  broad  plaza 
by  means  of  double  gateways  for  driveways  and  paths.  This  plaza  is  suggested  topographi- 
cally by  the  comparatively  level  hilltop.  Its  purpose,  besides  giving  a  strong,  dignified 
introduction,  serves  to  care  for  the  congestion  of  traffic  which  will  arise  from  the  use  of 
the  park.  Furthermore,  the  extensive  park  beyond,  owing  to  its  lower  level,  would  not 
otherwise  be  suggested  by  anything  along  the  Boulevard  (our  great  connecting  parkway), 
and  this  fact  alone  fully  justifies  a  very  handsome  treatment  at  this  point. 

At  the  westerly  end  of  this  plaza  the  driveways  unite  and  the  paths  converge  toward 
the  single  roadway.  The  double  driveways  have  been  descending  more  rapidly  than  the 
paths  so  that  the  latter  are  here  several  feet  higher  and  each  on  a  platform.  These  plat- 
forms are  further  accented  by  two  gazebos  from  which  the  longest  views  from  any  point 
in  the  park  may  be  had.  The  elevation  is  85  feet  above  the  level  of  the  Hackensack  River 
and  the  view  commanded  includes  the  Hackensack,  the  Meadows,  and  the  Orange  Mountains 
miles  beyond. 

A  secondary  and  very  important  function  of  this  portion  of  the  park  will  be  as  a 
popular  rendezvous  where  people  in  the  immediate  vicinity  may  sit  and  gossip  and  enjoy 
the  shade,  the  outlook,  and  the  fine  breezes. 

The  steep  hillside  down  to  West  Side  Avenue  offers  fine  opportunities  for  good  effects 
with  trees  and  flowers.  The  driveway  and  paths  are  necessarily  depressed  for  the  sake 
of  grade,  and  the  rising  ground  on  either  side  will  lend  itself  to  very  handsome  flanking 
plantations  on  a  rising  slope. 

At  West  Side  Avenue,  entrances  and  ample  sidewalks  amd  waiting  pavilions  provide 
for  the  crowds  which  will  arrive  and  depart  by  the  street-cars  and  otherwise.  This  will  be 
a  very  busy  place.  In  fact  we  expect  that  the  great  majority  of  the  users  of  the  park  will 
arrive  and  depart  by  this  and  the  Hudson  County  Boulevard  entrances,  inasmuch  as  the 
bulk  of  Jersey  City's  population  is  eastward  of  the  park.  Hence  the  important  treatment 
which  has  been  given  to  these  approaches. 

We  now  enter  the  main  portion  of  the  park.  The  treatment  is  not  changed,  for  it 
is  highly  desirable  that  the  street  crossing  should  make  as  little  interruption  as  possible 
to  a  feeling  of  continuity  in  the  park  design. 

The  continuation  of  the  formal  portion  of  the  park  leads  up  to  and  terminates  in  an 
important  cross-axis  which  forms  both  a  fitting  climax  to  what  has  gone  before  and  a 
suitable  opening  out  into  the  informal  parts  to  which  we  are  coming.  The  treatment 
here,  like  that  at  the  Boulevard,  was  suggested  by  the  topography  which  gives  us  our 
second  bench  or  table-land. 

At  the  intersection  of  these  two  axes  we  have  provided  a  broad,  formal,  circular  pool 
surrounded  by  our  driveway  and  walks,  with  a  balustrade,  where  the  hillside  begins  on 
the  west.  At  the  two  ends  of  the  transverse  axis,  sites  are  indicated  for  buildings,  and 
between  them  is  a  broad  mall  with  double  walks  and  four  rows  of  trees.  It  is  our  belief 
that  this  will  be  the  great  center  toward  which  all  park  interests  and  activities  will  converge. 
From  it  the  driveway  divides  in  a  Y-shaped  manner,  and  numerous  paths  diverge  to  every 
quarter  of  the  park.  From  its  terrace-like  promenade  many  of  the  best  vistas  will  open 
up.    At  its  north  side  a  site  is  shown  for  a  shelter  building.    At  the  south  end  provision 


74  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

is  made  for  a  band-stand  and  a  music-court,  and  back  of  these  for  a  restaurant  and 
shelter  combined.  Access  to  this  building  may  be  had  from  carriages  by  means  of  the 
concourse,  as  indicated  on  the  plan.  The  concourse  is  wide  and  comparatively  level  next 
to  the  music-court,  with  the  purpose  of  giving  a  place  where  carriages  may  assemble  and 
their  occupants  get  the  benefit  of  the  band  concerts  without  the   necessity  of  alighting. 

To  the  east  of  the  music-court  is  a  broad,  grove-like  lawn  intended  as  a  playground 
for  girls  and  smaller  children  where  they  may  be  separated  from  the  rougher  sports  of 
boys. 

Adjoining  it  is  an  especially  planned  enclosure  for  little  children  and  mothers,  with 
a  covered  arbor  for  the  latter  and  a  variety  of  simple  amusements  features  for  the  former. 
These  include  swings,  see-saws,  a  sand-court,  and  a  level  strip  of  turf  hedged  in  so  that 
they  cannot  wander  beyond  bounds  and  need  not  be  closely  watched. 

Proceeding  now  to  the  second  division  of  West  Side  Park,  we  have  opening  out  from 
our  cross-axis  a  beautiful  expanse  of  rolling  landscape,  somewhat  hollowed  out  through 
the  center  and  treated  as  a  quiet  meadow-like  lawn  and  supported  to  the  north  and  south 
side  by  wooded  knolls.  Many  vistas — lengthwise,  crosswise,  and  diagonally — through 
this  section  have  been  worked  out  with  great  care.  Shaded  winding  walks  and  drives 
circuit  the  tract  in  as  unobtrusive  a  manner  as  possible.  Their  chief  purpose  is  to  make 
its  many  quiet  features  accessible,  and  to  lead  the  visitor  to  points  of  advantage  where 
he  may  enjoy,  so  far  as  is  possible,  a  feeling  of  separation  from  city  sights  and  sounds  and  the 
relaxation  and  rest  of  the  country. 

Located  in  this  section  we  plan  to  excavate  a  natural  pool  and  a  meandering  stream 
leading  to  the  lake  beyond,  also  two  wading-pools  for  small  children,  and  an  adminis- 
tration building  placed  where  it  will  be  convenient  of  access  from  all  parts  of  the  park 
and  yet  not  unduly  conspicuous.  A  zoological  collection  may  be  introduced  in  the  southern 
or  Communipaw  Avenue  region. 

The  third  and  last  division  of  the  park  may  be  said  to  begin  with  the  level  meadow- 
land  at  Marcy  Avenue  and  to  extend  to  the  Hackensack  River  frontage.  We  have  planned 
it  as  a  great  athletic  field  with  amusement  and  recreation  features  and  a  lake. 

This  lake  is  an  important  factor  in  the  scenery  in  contrast  with  the  other  two  sections 
of  the  park.  It  is  on  the  line  of  sight  as  far  back  as  the  plaza  at  the  Hudson  County  Boule- 
vard, and  goes  far  toward  tying  the  different  parts  together.  Around  it  we  have  pro- 
vided a  narrow  winding  path  and  in  it  two  islands.  A  boat-house  is  shown  which  will 
also  be  useful  in  winter  for  skaters. 

In  the  athletic  field  proper  we  plan  to  provide  complete  facilities  for  outdoor  sports. 
Ample  areas  are  arranged  for  baseball,  tennis,  and  general  sport.  A  field-house  with  locker 
facilities  is  located  about  midway  of  the  field. 

Along  the  river  front  we  have  planned  a  formal  promenade  terminating  in  buildings 
which,  in  the  future,  it  is  hoped  will  be  useful  as  boat-landings,  a  recreation  pier,  res- 
taurant, etc.  These  buildings  also  terminate  the  long  vista  down  the  straight  sides  of 
the  lower  circuit  drive. 

A  feature  of  this  third  section  of  the  park  is  the  proposed  sunken,  transverse,  traffic 
street  connecting  Marcy  Avenue  from  north  to  south.  It  is  intended  for  the  future,  and 
does  not  enter  into  our  present  programme  except  that  the  grade  of  our  drives,  paths, 
and  ground-surfaces  are  so  designed  that  it  may  be  introduced  when  needed  without 
entailing  any  remodeling  or  material  change  in  the  existing  conditions. 


SMALL   CITY    PARKS 

By    SAMUEL    PARSONS,    JR. 
(Meeting  of  March  6.  1906) 

DE   WITT    CLINTON    PARK 

I  HAVE  one  special  park  to  consider  as  having  perhaps  more  in  it,  and  being  a  more 
genuine  city  playground  than  anything  else  in  the  city;  this  is  De  Witt  Clinton  Park 

on  the  west  side  of  town,  between  52d  and  54th  Streets  and  Eleventh  and  Twelfth 
Avenues.  You  can  hardly  imagine  anything  more  difficult  than  to  establish  a  playground 
in  this  place.  It  is  in  one  of  the  most  densely  populated  sections  of  the  city.  There  are 
nothing  but  tenement  houses  as  far  as  one  can  see,  and  a  little  further.  The  Hudson  is 
on  the  west  side,  with  a  great  number  of  docks  between  the  park  and  the  water.  It  is 
a  peculiarly  shaped  piece  of  ground,  tolerably  level  though  the  center,  but  it  slopes  off 
each  way,  so  that  it  is  not  a  flat  piece  of  ground  by  any  means. 

This  region  is  so  densely  filled  with  houses,  or  was,  that  it  was  quite  an  experience 
to  prepare  it.  In  the  beginning,  as  we  had  done  in  several  cases  of  other  parks,  we  sold 
the  houses,  got  it  turned  over  to  the  city,  and  all  the  people  out  of  the  houses.  It  was 
very  difficult  to  get  these  people  out. 

The  condition  of  this  ground  was  very  rough  when  it  was  turned  over  to  the  Park 
Department  to  make  the  park;  it  consisted  of  a  mass  of  cellars  and  old,  half-pulled-down 
houses,  and  all  that  sort  of  thing.  The  first  thing  we  did  was  to  cross-section  and  get 
exact  contours  of  this  rough  piece  of  ground,  then  lines  of  surface  were  established  to 
fit  the  contours.  The  map  showed  the  exact  condition  of  the  place,  and  where  it  was 
too  high  it  was  cut  down,  the  holes  filled  in  and  all  the  rubbish  cleaned  away.  It  was 
a  tremendous  undertaking;  it  took  a  good  deal  of  soil  to  do  it,  and  it  had  to  be  watched 
very  carefully.  It  is  a  very  important  thing  to  leave  the  ground  at  least  six  months  or, 
better,  a  year  or  more;  this  one  was  left  over  a  year  before  the  real  park  work  was  com- 
menced. These  holes  and  old  cellars  and  ground  would  settle  and  settle  and  there  would 
be  great  cracks.  Some  of  the  parks  in  years  gone  by  have  been  built  too  hastily,  and  the 
cracks  and  settlement  in  the  walks  and  holes  have  made  a  great  deal  of  trouble.  We  have 
been  more  particular  during  the  past  five  years. 

When  we  had  secured  the  proper  condition  of  soil,  we  commenced  to  make  the  park. 
Then  the  next  question  was  to  have  a  final  survey  of  the  contour  lines,  and  to  work  from 
those  contour  lines  in  order  to  secure  a  suitable  park  for  the  use  and  enjoyment  of  the 
public,  a  park  that  would  be  not  only  beautiful  to  look  at,  but  give  accommodation 
to  the  people,  the  girls  and  men,  not  only  the  young  but  the  grown-up  people,  for  the 
women  and  the  children,  and  everybody.  It  was  decided  to  devote  the  end  of  the  park 
nearest  the  city,  where  the  surroundings  are  less  attractive,  to  playgrounds,  and  to  take 
the  end  next  toward  the  Hudson  and  develop  it  largely  for  ornamental  purposes,  making 
it  beautiful,  a  place  where  people  would  want  to  go  and  sit  and  enjoy  themselves.  We 
had  one  playground  for  the  little  children  and  the  women,  keeping  the  boys  and  men 
separate,  for  they  are  so  hard  to  control;  in  preparing  these  grounds  we  had  to  surround 
them  with  fences  and  protect  them  in  every  way  possible.    That  is  one  thing  which  is 

(75) 


76  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

very  hard  to  understand:  how  it  is  possible  to  keep  anything  from  injury  in  the  city  of 
New  York.  One  who  has  not  been  through  the  experience  of  trying  to  take  care  of  these 
playgrounds  can  hardly  realize  the  difficulties  that  attend  caring  for  the  shrubbery  and 
trees  in  a  playground  like  this  in  a  densely  populated  section. 

Directly  in  front  of  the  playgrounds  is  a  large  gymnasium-ground  for  boys,  for  games 
and  all  gymnasium  apparatus,  and  a  running-track.  We  have  built  quite  a  complete 
building  for  shelter  and  refreshment,  on  which  we  have  spent  about  $50,000  or  $60,000, 
which  has  many  baths  in  the  basement,  and  above  is  a  shelter  where  the  band  plays  in 
the  summer,  and  where  is  a  place  to  sit  and  enjoy  the  breeze. 

This  park  has  the  most  perfect  buildings  of  any  park  in  the  city.  These  buildings 
were  designed  by  Barney  &  Chapman.  They  have  taken  advantage  of  the  mistakes  in 
other  parks,  and  have  made  the  buildings  more  convenient  and  simple  than  the  others, 
and  they  are  not  quite  so  expensive.  I  should  prefer  to  see  the  buildings  more  simple; 
they  are  for  the  people  who  gather  there  to  enjoy.  It  seems  almost  like  a  waste  of  money 
to  spend  so  much  of  it  in  that  way. 

All  the  plantation  work  is  not  finished  and  is  still  in  the  hands  of  the  contractors 
of  the  Park  Department,  and  trees  will  be  set  out  in  the  spring.  You  will  notice  on  the 
contour  map  some  large  rock;  that  has  all  been  retained,  and  everything  is  kept  very 
closely  to  the  original  contour  of  the  land;  and  yet,  at  the  same  time,  the  slopes  are  made 
easy  and  attractive,  and  are  sodded  with  grass. 

There  is  one  thing  to  be  said  in  regard  to  this  shrubbery  plantation  work  in  all  of 
the  downtown  parks,  and  that  is  the  great  care  needed  to  be  taken  of  them;  although 
the  police  try  to  exercise  control,  it  seems  almost  hopeless  to  attempt  to  keep  trees  in 
order  and  unbroken.    Shrubbery  suffers  in  the  same  way. 

You  will  notice  that  the  space  at  the  west  end  of  the  park  is  quite  interesting  because 
this  is  where  we  have  the  farm-garden  at  present  located;  the  trees  are  not  planted  here, 
except  on  the  outside.  We  do  not  allow  them  to  plant  anything  in  this  farm-garden  that 
is  tall,  like  corn.  They  have  cabbages,  beets,  turnips,  and  all  those  things.  The  farm- 
garden  is  in  the  middle,  and  is  divided  into  little  plots,  and  three  hundred  children,  more 
or  less,  come  in  at  different  times  of  the  day,  and  have  certain  hours  to  take  care  of  their 
plots;  there  is  considerable  rivalry  among  the  children  who  come  here,  and  they  seem  to 
have  a  very  good  time.  Mrs.  Henry  Parsons  has  worked  the  farm-garden  idea  up  very 
carefully  and  made  quite  a  success  of  it.  There  will  probably  be  several  others  started 
during  the  coming  year.  Connected  with  this  farm-garden  there  is  a  pergola  made  especi- 
ally for  the  mothers  and  children  and  for  the  use  of  the  farm-garden  tools;  there  is  also 
a  lecture-room  where  the  teachers  talk  to  the  children  in  rainy  weather.  This  is  a  very 
attractive  building,  and  from  it  you  can  look  out  upon  the  Hudson.  It  is  quite  a  success 
and  very  popular. 

The  system  of  protection  goes  all  around  the  park;  the  fence  on  the  outside  is  about 
six  feet  high,  and  there  are  sloping  banks  with  grass  planted  on  them,  and  all  of  these 
banks  have  been  re-sodded  two  or  three  times  since  they  were  put  down  last  summer 
because  the  boys  tear  them  up.  Of  course  this  park  would  suffer  more  now  in  its  present 
condition  because  it  is  still  in  the  hands  of  the  contractor;  the  police  do  not  have  the 
same  control  that  they  will  have  when  the  park  is  turned  over  from  the  contractor  into 
the    hands  of  the  Park  Board. 

There  is  quite  a  steep  slope  running  down  to  the  Hudson;  this  is  all  sodded  with 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  77 

green  grass  and  is  very  pretty.  It  is  probable  that  some  of  the  shrubbery  planned  will 
not  be  planted,  for  it  seems  hopeless  to  make  shrubbery  grow;  we  have  tried  it  for  twenty 
years  and  it  hardly  seems  worth  while  in  these  crowded  sections;  they  will  not  last  six 
months.  Shrubs  with  thorns  and  fences  around  the  planting  have  been  tried  without  effect. 

I  would  say  in  regard  to  these  parks  that  we  use  a  great  deal  of  rich  soil;  18  inches 
of  rich  soil  over  all  the  grass  surface.  When  trees  are  planted  we  fill  a  very  large  hole 
with  this  rich  soil  so  that  everything  that  can  be  done  to  make  the  trees  and  shrubs  grow 
and  thrive  is  done,  which,  of  course,  ought  to  be  done. 

There  are  no  gravel  walks  to  speak  of;  there  are  grass  and  trees  with  the  playgrounds, 
then  in  the  center  is  the  gymnasium  with  gravel  and  back  of  that  the  farm-garden.  The 
walks,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  we  have  to  make  of  asphalt. 

Every  year  we  repair  these  downtown  parks,  and  buy  about  400,000  square  feet 
of  sod  for  such  work.  People  are  forbidden  to  go  on  the  grass.  In  a  great  many  of 
the  places  we  have  used  every  inch  on  both  sides  of  the  walk  for  settees,  and 
these  settees  form  a  stronger  barrier  than  fences. 

W.  H.  SEWARD    PARK 

This  park  is  bounded  by  Canal  Street,  East  Broadway,  Hester  Street,  Essex  Street, 
lefferson  Street,  Division  Street,  and  Suffolk  Street. 

This  park,  though  it  is  quite  small,  probably  cost  more  than  any  park  ever  built; 
it  cost  a  million  and  a  half  to  buy  the  ground;  then  the  improvements  cost  at  least  $250,000 
more,  so  that  an  acre  and  a-half  of  ground  cost  about  $2,000,000. 

There  is  a  building  here  with  a  place  to  sit  down  and  listen  to  the  music,  then  there 
is  a  gravel  space  for  the  athletic  games,  and  a  children's  playground. 

Shrubbery  cannot  be  kept  because  of  the  boys  who  destroy  through  mere  vandalism. 
Sometimes  three  or  four  rowdies  come  in  and  start  to  threaten  some  laborer  working, 
just  out  of  pure  wantonness,  and  if  there  is  not  a  policeman  around  it  goes  hard  with  the 
laborer.  Thieves  come  in  there,  too.  It  is  a  bad  neighborhood;  I  don't  suppose  there  is 
much  worse.  As  for  criminals,  they  overrun  the  neighborhood  at  times.  Here  is  one 
of  the  largest  New  York  school-houses;  it  is  quite  a  sight  to  see  the  thousands  of  children 
come  pouring  out  of  this  school  and  going  into  this  park. 

There  is  a  high  fence  all  around  it.  We  found  it  necessary  to  widen  some  of  the  walks; 
they  are  generally  25  and  30  feet  wide,  and  we  thought  that  would  be  enough,  as  we  do 
not  like  to  cut  the  park  all  up  into  walks.  In  that  park  there  is  not  an  inch  that  could 
be  so  used  where  we  have  not  put  settees.  There  has  been  talk  of  flooding  this  park  for 
skating,  and  it  could  be  done,  I  suppose,  but  I  do  not  know  how  it  would  work  down  there 
with  that  immense  crowd. 

THOMAS    JEFFERSON    PARK 

This  is  a  very  interesting  park;  it  is  bounded  by  111th  Street,  114th  Streec,  First 
Avenue  and  the  East  River;  it  is  beautifully  located,  looks  out  on  the  water,  and  is  almost 
perfectly  level.  There  is  quite  an  opportunity  to  get  a  park-effect  here.  The  First  Avenue 
side  is  used  for  games,  etc.,  and  back  of  that  is  the  Mall.  There  are  eleven  or  twelve  acres 
in  this  park. 


78  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

All  around  here  there  is  an  immense  population  of  Italians — hundreds  and  thousands 
of  them;  whole  tenement  houses  packed  with  Italians  extend  back  for  some  ten  blocks; 
they  have  their  national  shows  there;  they  come  in  there  certain  fete  days,  and  it  is  very 
interesting  to  see  them. 

The  building  in  this  park  is  not  so  large  as  that  in  the  W.  H.  Seward  Park,  although 
very  nearly,  but  it  does  not  give  that  impression  because  the  park  is  so  much  larger  than 
the  other;  there  are  large  platforms  around  the  building  which  gives  an  opportunity  for  a 
great  many  people  to  gather  there. 

The  whole  park  has  been  surrounded  with  a  6-foot  fence;  the  playground  is  enclosed 
with  a  6-foot  fence;  there  is  little  grass;  chiefly  playgrounds.  I  think  before  long  we  shall 
have  a  farm-garden  in  there,  at  a  point  that  seems  a  suitable  place  for  it,  quite  level,  and 
lying  near  the  street.  Maintenance  is  difficult  because  the  people  go  and  dig  up  every- 
thing that  is  planted.  The  Italians  who  live  in  the  neighborhood  are  liable  to  quarrel 
and  do  damage  in  that  way. 

ST.  GABRIEL   PARK 

There  is  another  small  park  down  at  35th  Street,  36th  Street,  Second  Avenue  and 
First  Avenue,  near  the  34th  Street  Ferry.  We  have  just  taken  the  land  down  to  the  water 
so  as  to  have  the  right  of  making  a  park  through  to  the  river.  They  want  to  make  an 
elaborate,  expensive  building  for  shelter  and  baths,  the  value  of  which  I  question  very 
much,  and  have  always  questioned  whether  these  baths  are  just  the  things  to  have  in 
the  park.  I  think  their  place  is  not  in  the  park  but  in  the  city,  just  outside  the  park.  I 
do  not  see  why  they  should  have  baths  in  a  park;  they  will  sometimes  have  a  hundred 
baths  and  two  or  three  hundred  people  in  there  in  the  morning  in  this  crowded  section. 
So  that  we  will  probably  give  up  making  buildings  for  baths,  and  use  parks  for  athletic 
games  and  playing.  There  will  probably  be  a  recreation  pier  built  here  going  about  the 
length  of  half  a  block  into  the  water,  and  it  will  make  it  very  attractive. 

For  apparatus,  there  are  teeters,  swings,  and  slides;  they  think  a  great  deal  of  these 
slides.  I  was  looking  through  a  catalogue  of  a  Chicago  concern  the  other  day,  and  there 
are  quite  a  number  of  these  things  for  children;  some  of  them  are  very  good. 

We  have  about  thirty  attendants,  who  go  through  the  civil  service  course  and  have 
regular  salaries  paid  by  the  year;  these  attendants  have  charge  of  about  30,000  children, 
more  or  less,  all  told,  in  the  different  parks.  I  found  that  these  attendants  were  the  most 
difficult  to  deal  with  of  all  the  employees  we  had  in  the  park.  They  all  had  their  own 
notions;  they  were  generally  educated,  and  they  each  had  their  ideas  of  how  the  place 
should  be  run;  they  quarreled  with  each  other  over  the  methods;  one  would  say  the  children 
must  play  ball  in  a  certain  way,  and  one  would  say  they  must  play  in  another  way;  I 
recollect  one  day  they  shut  the  whole  place  up  on  the  ground  that  it  was  Thanksgiving 
Day.  I  had  fifteen  down  before  me  in  one  day,  and  I  suspended  three.  That  is  the  trouble 
with  that  kind  of  help.  The  whole  thing  is  more  or  less  new.  I  have  seen  the  teachers 
keep  the  children  standing  there  for  hours  while  they  explained  things  to  them;  and  yet 
the  children  were  there  to  have  a  good  time.  This  is  not  to  be  wondered  at  because  it 
is  a  new  thing,  and  it  will  have  to  be  established  and  used  in  a  reasonable  way,  and  it 
will  be  in  time. 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  79 

HAMILTON    FISH    PARK 

This  is  a  park  that  was  built  in  the  neighborhood  of  Stanton  Street,  east  of  the  Bowery 
about   half  a  mile. 

The  building  in  this  park  is  one  of  the  worst  of  the  kind  I  ever  saw.  It  was  built  by 
one  of  the  leading  firms  of  architects,  and  I  think  that  everybody  who  ever  had  anything 
to  do  with  it  is  in  absolute  despair;  they  don't  know  what  to  do  with  it  to  make  it  useful; 
it  has  a  great  space  of  about  eighty  feet,  with  little  baths  in  the  basement.  One  side  is 
arranged  for  an  indoor  gymnasium,  which  nobody  ever  uses,  and  I  don't  think  the  Park 
Department  ought  to  provide  that  sort  of  thing.  It  should  provide  room  where  they  can 
have  a  good  time.  The  building  cost  $80,000,  and  it  is  almost  impossible  to  use  it,  and 
it  is  constructed  in  such  a  way  that  to  alter  it  so  as  to  make  it  useful  would  cost  not  less 
than  $25,000. 

But  the  park  itself  is  all  right.  There  is  a  street  goes  through  there.  It  is  a  carefully 
laid  out  park,  but  the  lines  are  too  straight. 

HUDSON    STREET    PARK 

The  Hudson  Street  Park  is  particularly  inconvenient  because  it  has  no  playground 
space,  and  it  has  no  grass  in  it.  There  is  a  stone  wall  around  the  outside  and  stone  walks, 
and  the  whole  thing  is  artificial;  it  is  a  case  of  formality  carried  to  the  last  and  worst  extent. 
But  still  this  park  is  very  useful,  and  is  not  in  so  crowded  a  neighborhood,  and  the 
children  play  basket-ball  and  tennis,  but  baseball  is  out  of  the  question. 

Baths  are  an  excellent  thing,  and  I  do  not  want  to  say  anything  against  them, 
but  it  strikes  me  that  the  city  ought  to  keep  them  in  their  proper  places.  A  park  should 
be  essentially  a  park,  and  it  should  not  be  filled  up  with  libraries,  museums,  schools,  and 
all  that  sort  of  thing;  the  general  public  does  not  appreciate  that,  and  it  is  a  fight  to  prevent 
it.  I  have  a  great  deal  of  trouble  with  the  Carnegie  libraries;  they  are  trying  to  get  into 
the  parks  everywhere.  That  is  the  feeling  I  have  about  the  bath-houses.  I  don't  mean 
that  there  should  not  be  baths  in  the  parks,  a  certain  number  of  them  might  be  made 
for  the  convenience  of  the  people  who  come  to  the  parks  to  use  the  gymnasium,  etc. 

None  of  these  parks  has  been  flooded  in  winter  for  skating.  It  could  be  done,  but 
I  do  not  know  how  it  would  work;  it  is  such  a  tremendously  crowded  neighborhood.  Take 
the  skating  in  Central  Park;  I  can  remember,  as  a  boy,  going  up  there  and  enjoying  it, 
but  now  the  moment  the  skating  is  open  there  are  tens  of  thousands  of  people  on  hand 
and  in  half  an  hour  the  ice  is  so  cut  up  it  is  almost  impossible  to  skate  on  it;  that  would 
be  the  case  here. 

Wading-pools  have  been  tried,  and  I  have  questioned  their  value.  They  tried  to  intro- 
duce them  in  Central  Park;  I  am  afraid  of  them;  it  would  be  very  hard  to  control  them. 

The  same  thing  applies  to  the  effects  of  the  crowd  up  in  Central  Park.  There  is 
hardly,  I  was  going  to  say,  a  good  shrub  left  in  Central  Park.  When  the  spring  comes 
and  lilacs  are  in  bloom  people  seem  to  go  mad;  and  the  best  people  of  the  city,  too.  They 
tear  the  bushes  all  to  pieces.  There  is  a  sort  of  feeling  among  the  American  people  that 
anything  public  belongs  to  them  individually,  and  that  they  have  a  right  to  do  with  it 
as  they  choose;  if  they  do  damage  in  using  it,  that  is  all  right,  the  city  has  got  to  stand 


80  AMERICAN  SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

it.  I  remember  going  up  the  West  Drive  a  good  many  years  ago,  and  happened  to  look 
up  and  there  was  a  very  handsome  turnout  with  footman,  and  with  two  ladies  very  hand- 
somely dressed.  To  my  amazement  I  saw  them  stop  and  give  the  footman  some  order; 
they  drove  up  to  a  flowering  bush  and  the  footman  pulled  off  whole  branches  and  filled 
one  side  of  the  carriage.  I  rode  on  and  when  I  came  to  a  policeman  I  told  him  to  go  back 
and  find  them  and  take  them  in,  I  didn't  care  who  they  were.  They  were  taken  in  and 
there  was  quite  a  fuss. 

There  is  a  question  now  which  is  interesting  me  a  great  deal.  There  is  an  effort  being 
made  to  take  property  along  the  Hudson  and  get  permission  to  erect  boat-houses,  which 
are  really  club-houses — most  elaborate  affairs;  the  builders  get  a  permit  which  says  that 
the  property  may  be  used  until  the  permit  is  revoked,  or  it  is  revokable  at  pleasure;  and 
everybody  knows  that,  if  they  put  up  a  building  worth  $20,000  or  $30,000,  the  land  will 
never  be  required  of  them.   They  are  actually  taking  public  land  for  private  uses. 

There  is  a  misunderstanding  of  the  functions  of  a  park  among  the  mass  of  people. 
I  do  think,  however,  that  in  New  York  and  Boston,  and  possibly  Philadelphia,  there 
is  an  intelligent  view  of  these  things  among  a  few  people;  but  they  are  people  who  have 
a  great  deal  of  information  on  the  subject,  and  who  I  think  are  pretty  well  posted. 

I  think  the  American  elm  is  the  most  successful  street  tree  in  the  city.  Of  course 
the  plane  tree  is  a  very  good  tree,  and  does  very  well;  I  think  the  plane  tree  and  the 
America  elm  and  the  English  elm  are  the  best.  Of  course  we  have  good  maples,  but 
the  maples  are  a  little  uncertain;  they  do  not  grow  vigorously;  sugar  maples  won't  grow 
well  at  all.  I  don't  look  upon  the  silver  maple  as  much  of  a  tree.  People  like  to  plant  the 
Carolina  poplar  because  it  grows  quickly,  but  in  a  few  years  it  becomes  very  ugly.  Up  on 
72d  Street  there  is  a  remarkable  example  of  that;  it  is  only  five  or  six  years  since  they 
have  been  planted,  and  their  poor  condition  shows  what  they  will  look  like  in  time.  The 
American  linden  will  do  very  well,  but  you  cannot  depend  upon  it;  one  will  grow  all  right, 
and  immediately  next  to  it  will  be  another  specimen  that  will  not  grow  at  all.  The  American 
ash  does  very  well. 

There  is  a  park  downtown,  at  Tompkins  Square,  that  shows  what  will  come  after 
twenty  years.  It  is  a  park  of  ten  to  twelve  acres  in  size — Avenue  A,  Avenue  B,  7th  Street 
to  10th  Street.    Among  the  trees  in  this  park  are  a  great  many  silver  maples  and  elms. 

There  are  separate  grounds  for  the  use  of  the  girls  and  women  in  all  these  parks; 
in  De  Witt  Clinton  Park  there  is  one  for  the  girls  and  one  for  the  little  children.  I  do 
not  think  the  city  of  New  York  has  built  any  regular  playgrounds  in  connection  with 
the  schools.  They  have  places  at  the  back  of  the  schools  where  they  may  have  apparatus, 
but  I  don't  think  they  have  any  regular  system;  there  may  be,  but  I  am  not  prepared 
to  say  positively;  I  have  never  had  my  attention  called  to  it. 


HISTORICAL  NOTES 

By  DOWNING  VAUX 

(Meeting  of  November  13,  1906) 

OUR  work  is  so  engrossing,  and  the  problems  we  have  to  solve  so  intimately  related 
to  the  present,  that  I  almost  hesitate  before  asking  you  to  turn  over  a  few  of 
the  musty  and  forgotten  pages  of  the  past  with  me,  and  note  the  similarity  to 
the  present,  as  well  as  the  changes. 

To  go  way  back  and  begin  at  the  beginning,  we  find  Adam  and  Eve  in  the  Garden 
of  Eden.  Do  we  wonder  then  that  ever  since  they  were  evicted  their  descendents  have 
longed  to  get  back  again  into  their  Garden?  Can  we  do  less  than  to  help  them  to  achieve 
this  dream?  The  next  earliest  gardens  I  can  find  any  reference  to  among  the  dusty 
tomes,  "The  Hanging  Gardens  of  Babylon,"  were  terraced  and  no  doubt  very  beautiful 
to  the  ancients.  The  Greek  and  Roman  gardens  were  enclosed,  and  formed  almost 
part  of  the  buildings  themselves.  The  details  of  the  ancient  gardens  I  will  not  go 
into  at  this  time,  as  they  are,  no  doubt,  more  interesting  from  an  archaeological  point 
of  view. 

In  the  Middle  Ages  men  were  so  busy  fighting  that  little  was  done  outside  of  the 
walls  of  cities  and  castles  in  the  way  of  gardens.  The  eighteenth  century  inaugurated 
a  time  when  men  began  to  think  of  other  things  besides  war;  the  term  Landscape  Gardener 
was  coined,  and  the  work  began  to  be  done  in  a  business-like  manner. 

The  principal  works  at  this  time  were  large  estates  for  the  nobility,  no  thought  being 
given  to  public  parks  or  pleasure-grounds  for  the  people. 

In  1795  H.  Repton  published,  in  England,  "Hints  on  Landscape  Gardening,"  and 
this  work  was  followed  by  others  until,  at  the  present  time,  there  are  nearly  one  hundred 
books  on  the  subject.  Early  in  the  nineteenth  century,  Major  L'Enfant  planned  the 
city  of  Washington;  and  although  it  was  hardly  understood  at  the  time,  and  many  years 
elapsed  before  it  was  appreciated,  we  can  but  rejoice  that  the  plan  was  adhered  to  and 
not  abandoned. 

A.  J.  Downing,  who  might  be  fairly  called  the  Father  of  Landscape  Gardening  in 
America,  did  more  to  raise  popular  interest  in  the  subject  than  anyone  else.  You  all  know 
about  him  from  his  books,  but  you  may  not  remember  that  he  planned  the  row  of  houses 
still  standing  on  West  23rd  Street,  New  York  City,  which  are  set  back  from  the  street 
line,  with  gardens  in  front. 

Mr.  Downing  was  much  interested  in  the  proposed  Central  Park  and,  meeting  and 
liking  my  father,  Calvert  Vaux,  while  in  England,  prevailed  on  him  to  come  to  America. 
They  were  associated  together  for  several  years,  until  Mr.  Downing  died. 

When  the  drawing  of  the  plan  of  Central  Park  to  go  in  the  competition  was  being 
made  at  my  father's  house  in  18th  Street,  in  conjunction  with  Mr.  Frederick  Law  Olmsted, 
there  was  a  great  deal  of  grass  to  be  put  in  by  the  usual  small  dots  and  dashes,  and  it 
became  the  friendly  thing  for  friendly  callers  to  help  on  the  work  by  joining  in  and  "adding 
some  grass  to  Central  Park." 

That  was  the  day  before  tracing-cloth,  and  drawings  were  made  on  white  paper. 
If  copies  were  wanted  they  were  made  on  a  very  aromatic  and  brittle  tracing-paper  that 

(81) 


82  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

had  to  be  immediately  mounted  on  heavy  white  paper  with  flour  paste,  or  else  the  drawing 
was  copied  by  a  needle-point  transfer  that  was  often  far  from  accurate. 

Specifications  and  planting  lists  were  all  copied  in  long  hand,  and  students  often 
got  very  tired  of  the  work  necessary  to  make  four  or  five  copies  of  a  long  list.  The  first 
tracing-cloth  was  glazed  on  both  sides,  and  far  more  troublesome  to  use  than  the  present 
dull-back  cloth. 

Before  leaving  the  early  work  entirely  I  must  not  forget  to  mention  Gramercy  Park 
in  New  York  City.  This  park  is  owned  by  the  holders  of  the  property  fronting  on  it, 
and  is  not  open  to  the  public.  It  is  a  good  example  of  the  increased  valuation  and  per- 
manent improvement  to  the  neighborhood  a  park  effects.  Llewellyn  Park,  at  Orange, 
New  Jersey,  was  one  of  the  earliest  residential  parks  I  know  of,  and  it  has  held  its  own 
up  to  the  present  time. 

In  the  7o's  Jacob  Weidenman  published  an  illustrated  work  in  color  and  did  some 
work,  mostly  private  grounds.  This  brings  us  down  to  times  that  are  familiar  to  many 
of  us,  and  I  cannot  but  think  that  we  certainly  have  comparatively  little  to  learn  from  the 
ancients  in  our  art,  much  less,  in  fact,  than  the  architect  and  sculptor;  but,  at  the  same 
time,  we  must  not  ignore  the  admirable  permanence  of  their  work.  The  history  of  land- 
scape architecture  is  more  in  front  of  us  than  behind  us,  and  we  must  make  history  our- 
selves by  our  genius  and  work,  and  write  it  large  and  bold. 

In  1880  there  was  a  great  desire  in  New  York  to  have  an  exhibition  in  1883,  and  if 
the  promoters  had  not  tried  to  grab  Central  Park  it  would  have  been  successful.  For- 
tunately, the  defenders  of  the  park  were  backed  up  by  public  opinion  and  it  was  saved. 
It  was  also  proposed,  at  another  time,  to  take  part  of  Central  Park  for  a  military  parade- 
ground,  and  the  advocates  of  a  Speedway  were  very  nearly  successful  in  breaking  in. 
This  plan,  the  Port  Morris  plan  for  the  1883  exhibition  in  New  York  City,  by  Vaux  & 
Radford,  my  father's  firm  (and  on  which  I  did  some  work  myself),  laid  great  stress  on 
the  water-front,  and  used  the  same  arguments  successfully  employed  later  on  for  the 
coming  exhibition  at  Norfolk. 

One  of  my  father's  sayings  was,  "Always  remember  to  have  a  general  dimension 
and  a  working  line,"  and  his  favorite  expression  when  attacked  by  apparently  insur- 
mountable obstacles  was,  "Well,  we  have  got  to  whip  the  devil  around  this  stump."  He 
would  then  take  off  his  spectacles,  sharpen  his  pencil,  and  make  a  new  attack  on  the 
problem.  A  favorite  recreation  of  his  was  sketching  from  nature,  and  he  frequently  timed 
his  vacation  so  as  to  be  in  the  woods  and  mountains  in  the  autumn  with  his  artist  friends, 
and  enjoyed  planting  his  umbrella  and  camp-stool  in  some  commanding  position  where 
he  could  "daub"  along  all  day  in  a  faithful  and  painstaking  effort  to  reproduce  on  canvas, 
with  unfamiliar  brush,  the  rugged  mountain  slope  or  moss-covered  rock,  the  dark  pool 
reflecting  overhanging  trees,  or  the  intricate  interlacing  of  the  foliage  of  some  old  monarch 
of  the  forest  standing  alone  like  a  sentinel  of  nature  on  guard.  Nature  will  reward  a  study 
of  her  forms,  and  time  so  spent  by  the  learner  will  be  well  invested. 

The  work  of  the  landscape  architect  is  not  only  making  plans  for  land  already  secured, 
but  often  includes  advice  as  to  the  selection  of  the  property  at  the  very  beginning. 

Prospect  Park,  Brooklyn,  is  a  case  in  point.  The  land  first  selected  lay  on  both  sides 
of  Flatbush  Avenue  (and  the  Avenue  was  opened  and  graded  at  the  time).  The  land- 
scape architects,  Olmsted  and  Vaux,  advised  buying  additional  land  to  the  south,  where 
it   could   be  bought  at   reasonable  rates,  and  selling  the  land   on   the  north  side  later 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  83 

on  after  the  park  was  finished.  This  was  done,  the  city  profited  by  the  change  financially, 
and  the  park  gained  greatly  by  the  change.  In  many  cases  a  client  is  so  occupied  with 
the  multitudinous  details  that  keep  starting  up  when  a  home  is  to  be  evolved  that  the 
protection  of  his  surroundings  is  lost  sight  of,  and  salient  points  that  might  have  been 
secured  at  a  reasonable  price  before  his  work  was  started  now  soar  out  of  his  reach,  and 
he  realizes  too  late  that  it  would  have  been  more  satisfactory  to  have  called  in  a  landscape 
architect  at  the  beginning,  and  had  this  drawn  to  his  attention  in  time. 

In  reply  to  a  question  of  Mr.  Lowrie,  Mr.  Olmsted  said  that  the  designer  of  Llewellyn  Park  was 
given  on  the  maps  as  L.  F.  Haskel.   L.  S.  Haskel  (a  possible  misprint  for  L.  F.  Haskel)  was  given  as  owner. 

Referring  to  Mr.  Vaux's  statement  of  the  recommendation  of  Olmsted  and  Vaux  to  acquire  additional 
lands  for  Prospect  Park,  south  of  Flatbush  Avenue,  in  order  to  sell  off  the  land  on  the  north  side  after  the 
park  was  finished,  Mr.  Olmsted  said  that  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  land  had  actually  been  sold,  and  that 
part  of  it  had  been  used  for  the  high-service  reservoir  and  part  for  the  library. 

Mr.  Parsons  said  that  little  if  any  was  sold;  possibly  some  across  the  Eastern  Parkway,  but  none  on 
the  west  side  of  the  Parkway,  as  property  had  been  condemned  for  park  purposes,  and  therefore  could, 
not  be  sold. 


JAMESTOWN  EXPOSITION 

By  WARREN  H.  MANNING 
1  Meeting  of  December   11.  1906.      Revised   February   II,  1910) 

THE  idea  of  commemorating  by  an  exposition  the  first  permanent  settlement  in 
America,  made  at  Jamestown  Island,  in  the  James  River  in  Virginia,  May  13, 
1607,  first  suggested  in  Richmond,  was  taken  up  in  earnest  by  Norfolk  citizens, 
who  secured  legislative  authority  to  organize  a  corporation  and  raise  money  to  aid  in 
establishing  a  commemorative  exposition  on  or  near  Hampton  Roads.  The  Jamestown 
Exposition  Company  was  incorporated,  $1,500,000  was  appropriated,  contingent  upon 
the  company's  securing  paid  subscriptions  of  a  portion  of  the  $1,500,000  authorized 
capital. 

The  organizers,  having  examined  several  expositions,  were  impressed  with  the  vast 
waste  which  grew  out  of  their  being  located  on  land  not  owned  by  the  exposition  company, 
which  compelled  the  removal  of  the  buildings  very  soon  after  the  exposition  closed.  They, 
determining  to  arrange  for  a  more  permanent  exposition,  purchased  about  three  hundred 
acres  of  land  on  the  present  site,  to  which  they  later  added  fifty  more  acres,  upon  the 
advice  of  their  landscape  designer.  In  order  to  secure  control  of  a  very  picturesque  point 
of  land  and  Bousch's  Creek,  a  channel  was  dug,  giving  access  to  the  easterly  end  of  their 
first  purchase,  and  also  considerable  areas  of  marsh  land.  On  this  land,  last  purchased, 
it  would  have  been  possible  for  outsiders  to  establish  competing  attractions  detrimental 
to  the  exposition  company.  All  these  purchases  were  on  the  south  shore  of  Hampton 
Roads  opposite  Old  Point  Comfort. 

This  gave  a  water  frontage  of  nearly  a  mile  on  this  great  harbor  on  the  north;  on 
the  east  was  Bousch's  Creek,  a  tidal  estuary,  with  the  many  ramifications  peculiar  to 
such  estuaries  in  this  region.  Of  these  ramifications  two  arms  extended  into  the  grounds 
for  several  hundred  feet,  and  another  extended  far  back  of  the  grounds,  then  returned 
to  near  its  southerly  boundary.    These  topographical  features  I  will  refer  to  again. 


84  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

The  southerly  boundary  of  the  property  was  a  wide  road,  a  part  of  a  former  plan 
for  the  subdivision  of  this  whole  region  including  the  exposition  grounds.  Later,  the 
Tidewater  Railroad  purchased  500  acres,  including  the  whole  length  of  the  southern 
boundary,  thus  giving  absolute  protection,  together  with  the  water  frontages  on  three 
sides    referred    to. 

On  the  westerly  side  a  considerable  section  of  shore  frontage  and  the  only  grove 
of  old-growth,  short-leaved  pine  in  this  immediate  vicinity  was  turned  over  to  the  expo- 
sition company  by  a  company  owning  all  the  land  between  the  western  boundary  and  the 
shore  of  Elizabeth  River,  the  arm  of  Hampton  Roads  leading  to  Norfolk  and  Portsmouth. 

The  land  to  the  west  was  subdivided  into  small  lots  that  were  sold  without  restriction, 
and  upon  which  a  mushroom  growth  of  saloons,  shops,  and  the  flimsiest  kind  of  boarding- 
house  and  hotel  structures  were  erected  by  the  purchasers  or  lessees,  there  being  only 
one  large  and  creditably  designed  hotel  erected  some  years  before.  This  occupied  a  con- 
siderable territory  along  the  shores  of  the  Elizabeth  River  and  Hampton  Roads.  There 
was  also  a  street  railway  amusement  resort  of  a  rather  low  grade.  These  menaces  to  the 
exposition  were  early  recognized  and  influenced  the  plan.  This  settlement  was  mostly 
unsightly,  and  lack  of  restrictions  on  buildings  to  be  erected  made  it  certain  that  undesirable 
conditions  would  prevail  and  fire-traps  be  erected.  We  were  able  so  to  arrange  the  expo- 
sition plan  as  to  avoid  the  fire-risk,  take  advantage  of  existing  foliage,  and  screen  this 
whole  section  almost  completely  from  the  frequented  portions  of  the  grounds. 

It  will  thus  be  seen,  with  three  sides  absolutely  protected,  and  the  fourth  side  well 
screened,  that  the  surroundings  of  this  exposition  were  more  favorable  than  those  of 
almost  any  other. 

The  site  was  made  accessible,  but  not  fully  until  after  its  opening,  by  two  double 
electric  track  lines  from  Norfolk,  the  Tidewater  Railroad  to  Norfolk,  Berkley  and  Ports- 
mouth, all  lines  of  travel  from  the  South,  and  by  ferries  from  Newport  News  to  connect 
wuth  western  trains,  from  Old  Point  Comfort  to  near-by  Willoughby  Spit  and  to  the  expo- 
sition grounds.  Travel  from  the  North  would  come  by  the  way  of  Cape  Charles  route 
from  New  York  and  Philadelphia,  or  by  the  way  of  Richmond  to  Newport  News,  or  by 
boats  from  Boston,  New  York,  Baltimore  and  Washington,  with  landings  for  these  boats 
at  all  the  points  around  Hampton  Roads  referred  to,  and  on  the  Elizabeth  River  exposition 
entrance. 

The  region  about  the  exposition  is  of  very  great  historic  interest,  as  the  names  Rich- 
mond, Yorktown,  the  Dismal  Swamp,  the  James  River,  and  Pocahontas,  would  indicate. 

The  exposition  company  entered  into  a  contract  with  the  Board  of  Design,  composed 
of  Messrs.  Parker  &  Thomas,  of  Boston  and  Baltimore,  Mr.  John  Kevan  Peebles,  of 
Norfolk,  architects,  with  Mr.  Robert  S.  Peabody,  of  Boston,  advisory  architect,  and 
with  Manning  Brothers  of  Boston,  landscape  designers,  whose  practice  was  later  assumed 
by  Warren  H.  Manning.  This  contract  provided  for  the  design  of  all  buildings  to  be  erected 
by  the  exposition  company,  for  the  examination  and  criticism  of  all  buildings  erected 
by  concessionaires  upon  the  grounds,  for  the  design  of  roads,  plantations,  underground 
pipes,  etc. 

It  being  assumed  that  a  town  would  ultimately  be  here,  a  town  plan  was  first  devised, 
and  the  whole  territory  subdivided  into  roads  and  lots.  Upon  some  roads  of  a  previous  plan 
of  a  part  of  the  area,  so  much  work  had  been  done  as  to  compel  their  acceptance.  Others 
could  not  be  used,  for  while  suitable  for  a  town,  they  could  not  be  utilized  for  an  exposition 


AriracAM  Expositions 

C  OM  PAl^ATIVC  AcrAo 


Li  Mrs   T£rpi?r  set-it  ioooft  5<?uAErs 
— K  e:y- 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  85 

in  which  it  was  necessary  to  provide  open  courts  and  parade-grounds  of  a  considerable 
extent  to  accommodate  crowds  and  group  the  larger  buildings,  and  which  in  our  plan 
was  to  be  the  civic  center,  for  which  no  provision  was  made  in  the  original  plans. 

This  study  was  based  on  a  local  surveyor's  topography  which  was  found  to  have 
errors  of  from  1  to  7  feet  in  elevation,  so  they  had  to  do  this  work  over  again. 

It  was  not  regarded  as  practicable  to  have  these  men  add  the  vegetation,  so  this 
was  done  by  a  force  from  the  office  of  the  landscape  designer,  in  such  a  way  as  to  show 
all  important  individual  trees,  all  groups  of  important  trees,  all  masses  of  shrubs  and 
herbs,  together  with  the  direction  and  character  of  views  from  various  viewpoints. 

This  survey  and  the  government  charts  showed  shallow  water  gradually  deepening 
to  nine  feet  1,500  feet  out,  with  a  tide-variation  of  about  three  feet,  a  steep  and  narrow 
beach,  a  shore  line  three  to  five  feet  above  water  on  the  westerly  end  running  up  to  thirteen 
feet  two-thirds  of  the  distance  east  of  the  westerly  line,  then  gradually  dropping  to  the 
long,  narrow  strip  of  land  between  Hampton  Roads  and  Bousch's  Creek.  At  the  point 
where  the  shore  was  highest,  a  divide  of  land  extended  at  right  angles  to  the  shore  across 
the  grounds  north  and  south,  the  highest  elevation  being  15,  with  a  gradual  slope  on 
either  side  down  to  the  13  and  14  contours,  which  included  a  very  large  area,  perhaps 
one-quarter  of  the  main  part  of  the  grounds.  One-quarter  of  the  distance  from  the  west 
line  of  the  southerly  boundary  a  depression  from  an  arm  of  Bousch's  Creek  referred  to 
before  extended  into  the  property  for  some  distance,  contour  4  being  its  lowest  point. 
On  the  easterly  shore,  along  Bousch's  Creek  with  its  two  arms  referred  to,  were  steep 
banks.    With  these  few  exceptions  the  ground  was  generally  level. 

There  was  an  old  plantation  house  with  barn,  slaves'  quarters,  a  few  negro  shacks, 
and  several  other  smaller  house-sites  about  the  grounds. 

Most  of  the  region  had  been  cultivated,  and  a  part  was  under  cultivation  when 
purchased.  Like  all  such  land  here,  it  was  intersected  by  ditches,  from  150  to  300  feet 
apart,  flowing  back  to  the  arms  of  the  creeks,  not  to  the  shores  of  Hampton  Roads,  on 
account  of  the  difficulty  of  keeping  the  bay  shore  outlets  free  of  sand.  These  ditches 
varied  in  depth  from  a  few  inches  to  ten  or  more  feet. 

There  were  also  old  breastworks  at  several  points,  for  this  Sewall's  Point  was  occupied 
by  confederate  troops,  who  were  frequently  exchanging  shots  with  the  federal  Fortress 
Monroe  at  Old  Point  Comfort  across  Hampton  Roads. 

The  vegetation  was  unusually  varied,  interesting  and  attractive.  I  have  already 
referred  to  the  grove  of  tall,  straight,  old  short-leaved  pine,  extending  along  the  shore 
from  the  western  boundary.  Inside  of  the  grounds  proper  along  the  boundary  was  a  varied 
growth — a  portion  of  five-  to  six-year-old  coppice  where  pine,  oak,  and  hickory  had  been 
cut.  A  portion  grown-up  and  cultivated  pasture  land,  with  crowded  thickets  of  oak,  dog- 
wood, holly,  hickory,  sourwood,  tulip  poplar,  sweet  gum,  sour  gum,  ash,  cherry,  bayberry, 
French  mulberry,  wild  rose,  several  ericaceae,  smilax  in  variety,  and  many  characteristic 
herbs  of  the  South.  The  average  of  this  growth  was  perhaps  from  fifteen  to  thirty  feet, 
with  now  and  then  trees  a  foot  or  more  in  diameter  and  sixty  to  eighty  feet  high.  Some 
of  the  most  notable  trees  were  scattered  big  pines,  some  over  two  feet  in  diameter,  and 
hollies  over  one  foot  in  diameter  and  forty  to  fifty  feet  high,  upon  which  were  carved 
the  names  of  North  Carolina  soldiers,  forming  a  part  of  the  defense  during  the  Civil 
War.    Many  of  these  names  are  still  legible. 

Other  sections  along  the  westerly  and  southerly  boundary  were  covered  with  seed- 


86  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

ling  pines  from  six  to  ten  feet  high.  Similar  conditions  prevailed  in  various  parts  of  the 
easterly  two-thirds  of  the  grounds,  with  the  addition  of  some  rather  extensive  open  fields, 
a  line  of  very  large  and  fine  old  pines  with  some  scattered  individuals.  Upon  the  easterly 
third  of  the  grounds  were  an  orchard  and  cornfields,  while  along  the  high  shore  next  to 
Bousch's  Creek  was  a  very  fine  growth,  chiefly  of  old  pines,  hollies,  red  bays,  grapes, 
oaks  and  dogwoods.  The  best  of  this  growth  was  confined  to  a  comparatively  limited 
area  that  included  the  steep  bank  next  to  the  marsh.  At  one  point  it  broadened  out  to 
include  a  cemetery  dating  back  to  early  in  the  seventeenth  century,  and  tenanted  mostly  by 
slaves  and  their  successors.    Near  this  was  a  very  fine  live  oak. 

I  have  referred  to  the  town  plan,  with  streets,  sewers,  and  water-drainage,  first 
studied.  After  it  was  accepted,  with  its  tentative  location  for  exposition  buildings  and 
the  modifications  for  streets,  therefore,  the  detailed  study  for  the  exposition  was  under- 
taken, in  which  some  streets  of  the  town  plan  were  omitted  to  provide  space  for  the  courts 
between  buildings,  parade-ground,  storage-yards  and  the  like.  The  ultimate  opening 
of  these  streets  was  always  considered,  however. 

In  all  plans  that  have  been  offered  to  the  exposition  company  a  pier  or  a  water-basin 
of  some  description  was  established  on  or  very  near  the  axis  line,  referred  to  before  as 
being  fixed  by  the  topography,  along  the  summit  of  the  ridge  with  the  15  contour  mentioned. 
On  some  of  these  designs  a  basin  was  enclosed  by  an  island,  on  others  there  was  an  island 
at  the  end  of  one  pier.  In  one  there  were  two  very  broad,  semi-circular  piers  leading  away 
from  the  shore,  In  our  first  study  we  adopted  the  simple  expedient  of  two  parallel  piers 
running  out  to  the  deepest  available  water,  the  space  between  the  piers  to  be  dredged  for 
boats  drawing  nine  feet  of  water  or  less,  the  ends  of  the  piers  to  be  connected  by  a  bridge 
under  which  boats  from  Hampton  Roads  could  pass  into  the  basin. 

The  main  court  extended  the  width  of  the  pier  into  the  grounds,  with  two  wings 
to  the  court  extending  right  and  left  at  its  extreme  southerly  end.  This  plan  carried  the 
main  buildings  back  nearly  to  the  boundary,  and  was  prepared  on  the  assumption  that  there 
would  be  an  expenditure  of  about  $5,000,000.  Later,  it  was  found  necessary  to  reduce 
this  estimate  of  cost  which  the  exposition  company  had  first  had  in  mind;  and,  to  make 
this  reduction,  the  end  and  two  wings  of  the  court  were  cut  out,  the  main  auditorium 
building  was  moved  down  to  the  head  of  a  straight  court  leading  directly  away  from  the 
pier,  upon  either  side  of  which  the  two  main  exhibition  buildings  were  placed.  This  left 
room  for  the  parade-ground  of  about  twenty  acres  at  the  back  of  the  main  building. 
State  buildings  were  then  arranged  about  this  parade-ground,  but  State  Commissioners 
found  the  shore  line  so  attractive  that  they  induced  the  exposition  company  to  have  the 
design  so  modified  that  all  State  buildings  could  be  placed  at  or  near  the  shore.  As  it  was 
not  possible  to  have  every  State  building  directly  on  the  shore,  oval  reservations  were 
made  over  which  the  buildings  setting  back  from  the  shore  could  all  have  the  water-view. 

In  the  original  plan  an  Arts  and  Crafts  village  was  grouped  about  the  old  plantation 
house  near  the  shore,  in  order  that  advantage  might  be  taken  of  the  fine  old  trees  about 
it.  The  building  itself  was  rather  typical  of  the  South,  especially  the  picturesque  out- 
buildings that  dated  back  to  a  very  early  period. 

When  the  State  buildings  were  moved  down  to  the  shore,  it  was  decided  to  place 
these  Arts  and  Crafts  buildings  in  front  of  the  fringe  of  fine  old  trees  that  formed  a  semi- 
circle between  the  two  tidal  estuaries  on  the  east;  in  some  respects  a  more  suitable  location 
by  reason  of  the  fine  background  and  their  proximity  to  a  woodland  trail  through  this 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  87 

fringe  of  trees  along  the  edge  of  the  bank  and  to  the  canoe  trail,  a  water-course  that 
was  formed  at  the  base  of  the  banks,  partly  to  secure  material  to  fill  the  marshes,  form 
islands,  and  avoid  all  dangers  of  mosquitos  from  this  source. 

The  "War  Path,"  corresponding  to  the  "Pike,"  the  "Midway  Plaisance,"  the  "Trail" 
of  other  expositions,  was  first  located  near  the  shore;  then,  with  the  re-location  of  the 
State  buildings,  was  pushed  back  to  the  center  of  the  grounds.  The  "Inside  Inn"  was 
located  at  the  shore  near  the  northwesterly  corner.  In  the  location  of  all  these  buildings 
regard  was  had  for  the  existing  vegetation.  It  happened  that  on  the  site  of  nearly  all 
the  main  buildings  were  open  fields,  or  coppice  growth  of  little  value.  Where  there  were 
good  trees  they  were  moved  into  our  streets.  An  old  apple  orchard  on  the  site  of  one  of 
the  larger  buildings  was  moved  around  the  parade-ground. 

At  an  early  period,  as  soon  as  the  town  plan  was  accepted,  and  before  much  advance 
had  been  made  on  the  detailed  study,  plans  for  water,  sewers,  and  drains  were  prepared, 
with  the  assistance  of  Mr.  Brooks,  the  City  Engineer  of  Norfolk.  These  plans  were  very 
promptly  accepted,  and  the  systems  promptly  and  quickly  installed,  because  it  was  recog- 
nized that  they  would  be  absolutely  necessary,  as  the  ground  was  so  wet  in  places  as  to 
make  it  at  times  impassible;  second,  because  water  would  be  required  as  soon  as  building 
operations  were  begun. 

Main  roads  were  also  graded  at  an  early  period;  but,  before  any  of  this  was  done, 
over  one  thousand  acres  of  ground  adjacent  to  the  exposition  was  drained  by  open  ditches 
in  order  to  obtain  the  best  possible  sanitary  conditions.  In  one  place  a  pond  nearly  one 
hundred  acres  in  extent  was  drained  at  a  cost  of  about  $500.  Previous  owners  had  expended 
about  $15,000  in  an  attempt  to  fill  it,  on  the  assumption  that  it  could  not  be  drained. 
Another  pond  of  twenty  acres  was  drained,  and  in  this  a  cart-load  of  big  fish  was  found, 
showing  that  it  had  been  in  existence  for  many  years.  Many  small  pools,  clogged  ditches, 
rain-water  barrels,  and  other  mosquito-breeding  places  were  drained  or  filled  at  the  same 
time. 

The  planting  was  also  taken  up  early.  In  the  region  it  was  found  that  a  large  variety 
of  native  plants  could  be  collected  at  low  cost,  and  it  was  determined  to  use  these  almost 
exclusively;  first,  because  this  use  would  lead  the  people  of  the  South  to  recognize  the 
beauty  and  value  of  the  plants  about  them;  second,  because  it  would  be  possible  to  secure 
effective  results  at  less  cost  than  they  could  be  secured  in  any  other  way,  because  larger 
plants  than  could  possibly  be  secured  in  quantity  from  nurseries  were  thus  made  available. 

In  the  town  plan  planting  spaces  were  arranged  everywhere  between  the  sidewalks 
and  the  street,  and  in  some  of  the  wider  streets  through  the  center.  Knowing  the  difficulty 
of  establishing  grass  successfully,  it  was  determined  to  fill  these  planting  spaces  completely 
with  native  plants,  using  one  variety  of  tree  in  each  street,  and  making  a  very  few  varieties 
predominate  in  the  planting  spaces  of  each  street,  these  varieties  to  be  so  selected,  how- 
ever, as  to  give  attractive  flowers,  foliage,  and  fruit  in  their  season.  For  example,  we 
used  on  one  street  the  evergreen  bayberry  (Myrica  pumila),  on  another  the  French  mul- 
berry, on  another  the  dogwood,  on  others  the  wild  rose,  mountain  laurel,  and  wild  plum. 
With  these  we  used  such  herbs  as  the  goldenrod,  the  marsh  mallow,  sneezewort,  pentstemon, 
and  similar  plants,  in  long  lines  throughout  the  length  of  the  street,  to  give  a  succession 
of  flowers,  and  outside  of  these  a  ground-cover  of  periwinkle,  strawberries  from  old  straw- 
berry fields  near-by,  ferns,  and  the  like. 

Calliopsis,  petunias,  Drummond's  phlox,  and  other  annuals,  were  seeded  in  all  open 


88  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

spaces  in  the  ground-cover  and  among  herbs  and  shrubs  along  the  planting  spaces  in 
the  spring  of  1907,  in  order  that  there  might  be  a  brilliant  display  of  flowers  during  the 
summer  season.  Contracts  were  made  for  rapid-growing  vines,  three  to  four  feet  long, 
in  4-inch  pots,  for  buildings,  poles,  fences,  and  other  places.  Native  rhododendrons  in 
large  numbers  were  secured  for  use  about  buildings  and  terraces,  just  before  the  opening 
of  the  exposition,  for  in  no  other  way  was  it  possible  to  secure  suitable  foliage  about  build- 
ings under  construction. 

There  was  little  ordinary  bedding  and  little  use  of  tender  plants,  excepting  in  pro- 
tected interior  courts.  Little  formal  gardens  were  designed  and  executed,  with  edges  of 
California  privet  kept  low  like  box,  about  the  Arts  and  Crafts  village,  and  filled  with 
flowers.  In  this  village  were  a  model  school  and  school-gardens.  In  the  spring  of  1906  these 
gardens  were  planted  by  eighty  children,  representatives  of  all  the  schools  of  the  region 
about  Norfolk. 

Of  course,  one  of  the  most  important  features  of  the  grounds  to  which  early  atten- 
tion was  given  was  the  street-tree  planting.  This,  too,  was  begun  early.  Here  again  we 
depended  upon  such  trees  as  could  be  secured  on  the  grounds  and  in  the  region  near-by. 
It  was  not  thought  advisable  to  move  such  trees  as  sweet  gum,  sour  gum,  and  the  tulip, 
so  we  depended  on  pin  oak,  willow  oak,  water  oak,  red  maple,  flowering  dogwood,  cherry, 
locust,  and  apple  trees  about  the  parade-grounds,  with  some  paper  mulberry. 

A  year  ago  last  winter  (1903— 1904)  one  thousand  five  hundred  trees  were  moved, 
varying  from  four  to  twenty  inches,  a  large  number  being  from  eight  to  twelve  inches. 
A  very  small  percentage  of  these  have  failed,  and  such  are  being  replaced  this  winter. 
In  our  interior  courts  cedars  were  used. 

The  cost  of  all  this  planting  was  extremely  low.  We  were  able  to  collect,  at  first, 
Vinca  major  as  low  as  thirty  cents  per  thousand,  mountain  laurels  from  two  to  five  feet 
high,  at  $2.50  per  hundred,  and  a  large  part  of  all  our  early  shrub  planting  did  not  cost 
over  two  cents  apiece  in  places — this  for  shrubs  averaging  three  to  four  feet  in  height. 
There  were  surprisingly  few  failures  in  the  shrub-planting.  Many  thousand  herbs  were 
planted,  but  with  a  somewhat  larger  percentage  of  loss;  among  these  were  80,000  Amaryllis 
Atamasco,  collected  on  the  ground. 

In  all  the  early  work  on  the  grounds  we  were  fortunate  in  securing  the  hearty  cooper- 
ation of  the  Board  of  Governors  of  the  exposition  company,  who  never  failed  to  recognize 
the  necessity  of  securing  the  most  attractive  conditions,  and  who  carried  out  my  recom- 
mendations in  regard  to  this  work  almost  without  question. 

So  far  as  work  on  the  grounds  is  concerned,  the  opportunity  to  establish  nurseries 
and  to  begin  our  permanent  nurseries  two  years  before  the  exposition,  made  it  possible 
to  secure  better  results,  especially  so  far  as  planting  was  concerned,  than  could  possibly 
have  been  secured  if  the  work  had  been  postponed,  as  so  often  occurs,  until  the  last  moment. 
Furthermore,  these  conditions  and  the  unusually  favorable  opportunities  for  collecting 
made  it  possible  to  secure  better  plantations  at  very  much  less  cost  than,  I  believe,  has 
been  possible  at  other  expositions. 


RELATIONS  OF  THE  HORTICULTURIST  AND 
THE  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECT 

By  C.  W.  BARRY 
(Read  at  meeting  of  January  8.  1907.  and  afterwards  revised  by  the  author) 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen: 

I  thank  you  heartily  for  the  very  kind  invitation  you  have  extended  to  me,  and  I 
assure  you  it  is  a  great  pleasure  for  me  to  be  with  you  tonight.  I  have  known  nearly  all 
of  you  by  reputation,  I  have  met  some  of  you  personally,  and  have  had  business  relations 
with  several,  so  that,  in  coming  into  your  midst,  I  feel  that  I  am  not  a  stranger  but  rather 
a  friend  who  will  be  welcome,  and  I  think  perhaps  I  may  be  able  to  say  something  which 
will  be  of  interest  to  you.  I  will  state,  however,  that  when  I  received  this  courteous  invi- 
tation no  mention  was  made  to  me  that  I  was  to  address  you,  so  that  I  must  apologize  for 
lack  of  preparation. 

The  growers  of  nursery  stock  depend  largely  upon  the  landscape  architects  for  the 
disposal  of  their  productions.  In  view  of  this  fact  it  seems  to  me  that  the  relations  between 
them  should  be  cordial  and  close.  Up  to  this  time,  I  do  not  know  that  any  opportunity  has 
been  offered  to  confer  regarding  the  best  means  to  establish  and  maintain  satisfactory 
relations. 

I  will  not  occupy  your  time  with  details,  but  I  will  say,  taking  into  consideration  the 
great  work  we  are  engaged  in,  and  which  is  developing  at  such  a  rapid  rate  in  all  parts  of 
the  country,  that  now,  at  least,  even  if  it  has  been  overlooked  in  the  past,  we  should  get 
together  and  determine  if  there  is  not  a  way  by  which  a  proper  understanding  can  be 
reached,  by  which  your  wishes  can  receive  better  attention,  and  the  end  for  which  we  are 
all  working  be  attained  more  satisfactorily.  This  seems  to  be  the  point  we  should  aim  at 
and  one  to  which  I  would  ask  your  respectful  attention. 

The  growth  and  development  of  landscape  gardening  in  this  country  is  quite  extra- 
ordinary. I  do  not  know  of  any  profession  which  has  brighter  prospects.  I  believe  that  the 
people  are  determined  to  own  beautiful  homes,  and  upon  the  landscape  architect  devolves 
the  duty  of  planning,  elaborating,  and  completing  artistic  work.  The  growers  of  nursery 
stock  have  labored  under  many  difficulties.  The  demand  has  been  uncertain,  the  profits 
have  not  been  great,  and,  therefore,  the  opportunities  for  the  landscape  architect  to  secure 
at  the  moment  just  what  was  needed  have  not  been  the  best.  The  prevailing  prices  have 
been,  and  are  now,  too  low.  Good  material  should  command  higher  prices,  and  I  think 
that  the  landscape  architects  can  aid  greatly  in  changing  the  conditions,  securing  better 
stock,  and  enabling  the  nurserymen  to  make  a  reasonable  profit.  The  grower  should  have 
your  aid  and  advice  in  many  ways.  He  should  learn  what  stock  you  want,  and  how  it 
should  be  grown  and  treated  for  your  purpose.  This  being  done,  you  will  be  able,  with 
much  less  difficulty,  to  secure  what  you  need  for  the  elaboration  of  your  schemes. 

I  do  not  propose  to  detain  you  with  these  informal  remarks,  but  I  wish  to  emphasize 
what  I  have  already  said,  that  we  should  get  together.  How  to  do  this,  whether  through 
a  committee  or  otherwise,  I  am  not  prepared  to  say,  but  I  merely  make  the  suggestion. 

I  thank  you  for  the  courtesy  you  have  shown  me,  and  I  hope  that  I  have  not  abused 
in  any  way,  the  opportunity. 

(89) 


po  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

I  will  close,  hoping  that  something  may  be  accomplished  which  will  be  productive- 
of  benefit  for  all  concerned. 

In  the  discussion  following,  Mr.  Parsons  spoke  of  the  need  for  the  best  quality  of  stock  and  the  help 
of  the  grower.  He  pointed  out  that  good  stock  must  command  a  good  price,  that  he  had  never  found  a  client 
to  complain  of  the  price  of  good  stock,  and  that  it  is  poor  policy  to  buy  poor  stock  because  it  is  cheap.  Mr. 
Parsons  and  Miss  Jones  suggested  a  Joint  Committee  to  take  up  the  question. 

Mr.  Caparn  spoke  of  the  difficulties,  and  the  generally  conciliatory  attitude  of  nurserymen,  attributing 
the  poor  quality  of  much  of  the  stock  sent  out  to  the  competition  among  nurserymen  and  the  tendency 
of  the  landscape  architect  to  insist  on  low  prices  in  the  interest  of  his  client,  which,  in  the  long  run,  would 
depreciate  the  quality  of  stock.  He  spoke  of  the  tendency  of  the  landscape  architect  to  plant  thickly  and 
carelessly  for  immediate  effect,  and  advised  the  use  of  fewer  plants  of  better  quality  with  proportionately 
more  care  in  their  arrangement  and  planting. 

Mr.  Nolen,  referring  to  remarks  of  Mr.  Barry,  spoke  of  the  belief  of  the  landscape  architects  that 
nurserymen  should  abstain  from  practising  landscape  design,  as  we  abstain  from  the  nursery  business.  He 
suggested  that  the  nurserymen  should  have  systematic  information  from  the  landscape  architects  as  to  the 
kind  of  stock  they  desired,  and  that  the  landscape  architect  should  use  his  personal  influence  with  clients 
to  induce  them  to  buy  only  a  high  quality  of  stock. 


SYNOPSIS  OF  TALK  ON  WESTERN  NOTES 

By  OSSIAN  C.  SIMONDS 
(Meeting  of  February  5.  1907) 

Mr.  Simonds  spoke  of  the  increase  of  commuters,  and  city  men  with  country  places, 
in  Chicago.  He  referred  to  the  use  of  the  word  "client,"  which  seems  the  most  appropriate 
term  for  those  seeking  advice  of  the  landscape  architect. 

In  work  on  country  places,  conditions  are  best  when  the  client  takes  counsel  of  his 
landscape  architect  as  to  the  site  of  the  house,  position  of  outbuildings,  approaches,  kitchen, 
living-room,  dining-room,  etc.,  and  the  several  outlooks.  There  are  many  architects, 
especially  young  ones,  who  think  they  know  best  about  all  these  things. 

Then  followed  descriptions  of  work  on  several  country  places.  In  one,  the  house  was 
set  at  a  slight  angle  with  that  of  the  neighbor  so  that  the  dining-room  could  get  the  east 
and  south  light,  and  views  would  be  better.  Hall  and  living-rooms  were  in  the  central  and 
northern  parts  of  the  house.  Land  leading  down  to  Lake  Michigan  was  covered  with  native 
shrubs,  with  open  spaces  for  asters  and  goldenrod.  Steep  slopes  should  always  be  covered 
with  woody  growth  which  holds  banks,  looks  well,  takes  care  of  itself  and  keeps  green 
without  constant  watering. 

A  lot  on  a  city  street,  150  by  200  feet,  fronted  east  on  a  north-and-south  street.  House 
to  be  used  the  whole  year.  Living-rooms  and  dining-room  were  put  on  the  south  side 
and,  to  gain  as  much  light  as  possible,  the  house  was  set  as  near  the  north  boundary  as 
it  could  be,  leaving  space  for  a  drive.  House  on  the  adjoining  lot  to  the  south  about  thirty 
feet  from  the  street  line.  As  this  seemed  too  close  for  seclusion,  the  house  was  put  50 
feet  from  the  street.  Grade  at  house  thirty  inches  above  sidewalk.  Main  entrance  to 
house  at  the  northeast  corner.  Drive  and  walk,  of  cement,  combined  to  have  the  front 
lawn  as  large  as  possible.    Gentle  slopes  from  the  house  in  all  directions. 

A  house  with  a  ravine  on  the  lot  was  spoiled  by  a  road  running  around  the  house,  a 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  91 

stable,  and  the  use  of  the  ravine  as  a  dump,  By  making  an  entrance  to  the  house  at  the 
west  end  the  road  was  removed  from  two  sides  of  the  house.  The  stable  was  removed  to 
another  part  of  the  lot,  and  the  ravine  restored  to  its  natural  condition. 

On  the  home  grounds  of  a  large  farm  many  scattered  trees  had  been  set  out.  This 
was  an  excellent  opportunity  to  demonstrate  the  value  of  mass-planting  by  grouping 
them  as  a  background  to  the  house  on  higher  ground  with  margins  of  thorn  apples  and 
hazel  bushes  toward  the  house.  A  meaningless  curved  terrace  between  the  house  and 
street,  cutting  the  grounds  in  two  and  belittling  them,  was  removed. 

In  the  city  of  K some  park  commissioners  had  "cleared   out   the   brush," 

which  turned  out  to  be  masses  of  pawpaws,  prairie  roses  and  some  thorn  apples.  Being 
apprised  of  the  immorality  of  this  proceeding,  the  commissioners  promised  not  to  do 
it  again. 

Mr.  Simonds  further  said:  We  try  to  make  all  grades  on  natural  lines;  that  is,  with 
gently  curved  surfaces,  slightly  concave  at  the  lower  part  and  convex  at  the  upper  part. 
We  try  to  stake  out  drives  and  walks  where  people  will  want  to  go,  and  have  as  few  of 
them  as  we  can  and  meet  requirements.  We  strive  to  give  a  natural  appearance  to  the 
planting.  A  good  grade,  however,  does  not  insure  success,  although  it  is  helpful  and  neces- 
sary to  that  end.  The  same  may  be  said  with  regard  to  the  proper  location  of  roads  and 
walks,  or  the  planting  out  of  unsightly  objects.  With  all  of  these,  success  is  attained  only 
when  one  can  see  real  pictures  from  the  windows  and  verandas — pictures  that  are  even 
better  than  those  painted  by  Corot  or  Daubigny. 

The  landscape  architect  should  not  confine  his  efforts  to  working  out  a  satisfactory 
scheme  for  his  client;  he  should  also  be  a  teacher,  for  the  best  results.  The  most  perfect 
success  will  not  be  attained  until  good  work  is  understood  and  appreciated  by  the  public. 


A  GREAT  WATER  PARK  IN  JAMAICA  BAY, 
NEW   YORK 

By  HAROLD  A.  CAPARN 

(Meeting  of  November  12.  1907) 

A  CIRCLE  of  eight  miles  radius,  whose  center  is  City  Hall,  New  York,  would  pass 
through  Bergen  Beach  and  Canarsie  Landing,  both  popular  pleasure  resorts  on 
the  shores  of  Jamaica  Bay  on  Long  Island.  A  ten-mile  radius  would  pass  close  to 
Barren  Island  where  the  city  garbage  is  disposed  of.  Jamaica  Bay  runs  east  of  these  places. 
In  shape  it  is  an  ellipse  with  a  major  axis  of  ten  miles  and  a  minor  axis  of  five  miles,  with 
the  major  axis  running  about  east  and  west.  On  three  sides,  north,  east,  and  west,  it  is 
surrounded  by  salt  marshes,  partly  overflowed  at  high  tide.  The  southern  boundary  is 
mainly  a  sand-bar,  called  Rockaway  Beach,  which  separates  the  bay  from  the  Atlantic 
Ocean.  Water  from  the  ocean  enters  and  leaves  it  through  a  channel  called  Rockaway 
Inlet.  The  bay  is  an  assemblage  of  channels  meandering  between  numerous  marshy  islands, 
hummocks,  or  hassocks  as  they  are  called,  largely  submerged  at  high  tide.  Around  the 
group  of  islands  runs  a  wide  channel  called,  according  to  locality,  Big  Channel,  Grassy 
Bay,  Grass  Hassock  Channel,  and  Beach  Channel.  Three  other  main  channels,  Broad 
and  Pumpkinpatch  Channels  and  The  Raunt  intersect  the  islands,  and  besides  these  there 
are  many  smaller  channels  and  creeks.  Some  of  the  names,  like  those  mentioned,  are  worth 
preserving  for  their  picturesqueness  and  local  color.  Such  are  Carnarsie  Pol,  Jo  Co's  Marsh, 
Nestepol  Marsh,  Ruffle  Bar,  Ruler's  Point  Hassock.  The  whole  water  area  of  the  bay  is 
16,170  acres,  or  25^4  square  miles.  The  marsh  area  surrounding  it  is  8,500  acres,  and  in 
the  bay  are  4,200  acres  of  marsh.  With  so  great  an  extent  of  surface  at  or  near  water-level 
it  will  be  plain  that  the  general  character  is  one  of  low  skyline  and  great  expanse,  with 
the  monotony  always  produced  by  the  absence  of  any  definite  boundaries  of  the  middle 
distance. 

Since  taking  up  the  subject  of  a  park  in  Jamaica  Bay,  which  had  been  proposed  several 
years  ago  in  a  general  way  by  the  City  Improvement  Commission,  amongst  others  I  have 
learned  that  a  Commission  of  Engineers  has  been  appointed  by  Mayor  McCIellan  to  report 
on  Jamaica  Bay  as  a  site  for  a  harbor  for  ocean-going  vessels  with  docks  and  wharfage. 
The  Commission  issued  their  report  on  May  31,  1907.  Its  members  were  not  able  to  agree 
on  a  general  scheme  and  issued  a  majority  and  a  minority  report,  both  very  interesting 
and  showing  much  care  and  research.  It  will  be  worth  while  to  outline  them  briefly,  and 
they  will  be  comprehensible  by  the  aid  of  the  maps  contained  in  the  report. 

New  York  is  outgrowing  its  harbor  and  dock  facilities  and  is  feeling  pressing  need  for 
their  extension.  There  are  four  hundred  and  four  miles  of  water-front  and  about  thirty- 
five  miles  of  dock  and  wharf-front  in  the  city.  Population  and  exports  and  imports  double 
in  New  York  about  every  thirty  years.  For  instance,  the  imports  and  exports  entered 
and  cleared  at  the  port  of  New  York  increased  from  $619,570,1 18  in  1875  to  $1,204,355,361 
in  1905.  Tonnage  in  foreign  trade  was  8,732,507  tons  in  1875;  18,942,380  in  1905.  This 
looks  as  if  the  city  ought  to  have  twice  as  much  dock-  and  wharf- room  in  1940  as  she 
has  now. 

To   provide   for   this   the  Commission    has    advised   th;  dredging  of  Jamaica   Bay 

(92) 


AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  93 

to  depths  of  from  twenty-five  to  forty  feet,  the  filling  in  of  the  marsh-land  and  the  con- 
struction of  an  immense  system  of  docks  along  the  shores  and  on  the  land  to  be  filled  in 
the  bay.  The  scheme  advised  in  the  majority  report  differs  especially  from  that  of  the 
minority  in  the  arrangement  of  the  areas  in  the  middle  of  the  bay.  The  majority  report 
plan  follows,  as  far  as  possible,  the  channels  existing  in  the  bay,  thus  making  crooked 
water  courses  and  islands  of  irregular  shape.  The  minority  report  would  make  two  long 
islands  with  a  straight  channel  between  them  in  the  middle  of  the  bay,  and  a  third  occupy- 
ing the  region  between  Bergen  Beach,  Barren  Island  and  Plum  Beach.  This  has  certainly 
the  merit  of  a  superb  simplicity. 

The  line  of  docks  proposed  along  the  shores  of  the  bay  is  about  twenty-five  miles 
long.  As  most  of  the  piers  would  be  very  large,  and  as  the  system  of  handling  freight 
would  be  the  most  modern  and  expeditious  and,  in  consequence,  a  vast  improvement  over 
that  now  in  use  along  the  New  York  water-front,  it  would  seem  reasonable  to  consider 
this  twenty-five  miles  of  dock-  and  wharf-front  as  at  least  equal  to  the  thirty-five  miles 
or  so  of  more  or  less  out-of-date  wharfage  that  now  serves  the  city.  The  arrangement 
of  a  strip  six  hundred  and  forty  feet  wide  for  warehouses,  railway  tracks  and  factories 
along  part  of  the  water-front  proposed  is  very  interesting  and  can  be  studied  in  the  majority 
report.  Thus,  if  the  shores  of  Jamaica  Bay  and  the  creeks  were  lined  with  docks,  as  pro- 
posed, they  might  be  expected  to  keep  pace  with  the  commercial  needs  of  New  York  for 
thirty  or  forty  years,  assuming  that  the  exports  and  imports  kept  up  their  present  rate  of 
increase.  After  that  time  more  wharfage  would  have  to  be  found  somewhere,  and  an  obvious 
extension  would  be  to  the  land  in  the  middle  of  the  bay. 

But  this  assumes  that  there  would  be  no  extension  elsewhere.  It  ignores  the  fact  that 
even  though  Jamaica  Bay  is  eight  or  ten  miles  nearer  Europe,  Newark  Bay  and  its  tribu- 
tary rivers  and  kills  are  as  yet  practically  undeveloped,  and  that  the  Hackensack  Meadows 
could  be  dredged  and  filled  in  the  same  way  and  for  the  same  purpose  as  Jamaica  Bay, 
and  that  all  these  places  are  on  the  mainland  and  in  direct  communication  with  all  the 
lines  of  railroad  excepting  those  leaving  the  Grand  Central  Station,  while  Jamaica  Bay  is 
reached  only  by  the  Pennsylvania  and  the  New  York,  New  Haven  and  Hartford  Railroads 
and  all  freight  would  have  to  be  carried  to  the  mainland  by  water.  It  also  ignores  that 
this  same  Commission  has  advised  the  development  of  many  miles  of  dockage  on  Staten 
Island,  Brooklyn,  Queens  and  The  Bronx.  The  fact  that  Newark  Bay  and  the  adjoining 
territory  is  no  less  likely  to  receive  development  than  Jamaica  Bay  is  referred  to  several 
times  in  the  course  of  the  report,  and  especially  in  the  minority  report  which  says,  "It 
would  seem  that  the  providing  for  the  larger  part  of  this  increase  in  shipping  will  fall  to 
the  lot  of  the  city  of  New  York,  unless  Neiv  Jersey,  through  the  development  of  her  meadow- 
lands  upon  the  mainland,  should  forestall  her  and  utilize  these  advantages  for  her  own  citizens." 
(The  words  from  "unless"  on  are  printed  in  capitals  in  the  report). 

There  being  so  much  other  water-front  along  which  wharf  and  harbor  facilities  may 
be  expected  to  develop,  it  seems  not  unreasonable  to  suppose  that  the  interior  of  Jamaica 
Bay  may  not  be  required  for  seventy-five  or  one  hundred  years;  perhaps  not  at  all,  for 
unforeseen  commercial  conditions  may  arise  and  the  increase  of  New  York's  trade  may  not 
go  on  forever.  In  the  meantime,  I  would  suggest  the  use  of  the  interior  flats  and  channels 
of  the  bay  for  a  public  park.  Not  a  conventional  park  with  lawns  and  exotic  trees  and  shrubs 
and  asphalt  walks,  but  a  water-park  with  many  and  intricate  channels  intersecting  the 
great  level  areas  of  reclaimed  marsh,  on  which  all  the  sports  of  smooth  water,  rowing, 


94  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

sailing,  fishing,  and  swimming  in  all  their  phases  may  find  ample  space  and  endless  variety. 
In  his  report  of  January  26,  1905,  on  possible  sites  for  parks  on  the  shores  of  the  bay,  Mr. 
John  C.  Olmsted  refers  to  the  possibility  of  "forming  lagoons  and  wooded  archipelagos" 
between  Bergen  Island,  Plum  Island  and  Barren  Island,  which  would  make  one  of  the  most 
interesting  parks  in  the  world.  The  idea  on  a  much  larger  scale  applies  equally  well  to  the 
marshes  in  the  interior  of  the  bay.  The  region  has  a  sentiment  about  it  that  is  all  its  own; 
a  feeling  of  stillness  and  serenity  that  the  rhythmic  thud  of  the  oarlocks  and  the  dip  of 
the  blades  seems  merely  to  augment,  and  even  the  multiplied  explosions  of  the  exasperating 
and  prosaic,  but  useful,  motor-boat  are  unable  to  destroy.  The  scenery  is  widespread, 
soothing  and  eminently  paintable  in  broad  and  dun  or  broad  and  splendid  tints  borrowed 
from  the  sky;  and  everywhere  pervading  is  a  large  monotony  that  is  perhaps  its  greatest 
charm — the  charm  of  the  prairie,  the  desert,  a  still  sea,  or  cloudless  heaven,  or  whatever 
one  can  imagine  vast  and  simple. 

All  this  somewhat  hackneyed  and  commonplace  kind  of  description  will  not  account 
for  the  fascination  the  place  has  for  anyone  who  is  sensitive  to  the  influence  of  sky  and 
water.  The  result  to  the  imagination  is  one  of  complex  causes;  the  whole  air  of  repose  and 
self-possession  is  only  part  of  the  feeling  produced  by  the  seemingly  limitless  expanses 
overhead  and  beneath;  of  level  surfaces  of  marsh  and  water  above  which  one  cannot  rise 
high  enough  to  see  that  their  boundaries  are  nearer  than  a  vast  distance. 

Now,  as  the  sentiment  of  a  work  of  art  is  the  only  thing  that  makes  it  finally  worth 
while,  the  sentiment  of  Jamaica  Bay,  not  its  extent,  is  what  makes  it  most  valuable  to 
the  people  of  New  York.  It  is  different  in  expression  and  in  uses  from  any  public  park 
with  which  I  am  acquainted.  It  is  not  merely  valuable  because  different,  but  because  it 
expresses  one  of  the  characteristic  and  peculiar  kinds  of  the  very  varied  scenery  and  topog- 
raphy of  Greater  New  York.  And  in  park-making  as  in  other  kinds  of  art,  the  true  solution 
of  the  problem  before  one  is  surely  not  to  try  to  impose  one's  ideas  or  prejudices  on  the 
conditions,  but  to  find  how  the  conditions  can  be  best  expressed  or  idealized  in  the  terms 
at  one's  command. 

How  is  this  to  be  done  so  as  to  make  such  a  park,  practically  as  well  as  esthetically,  as 
useful  as  possible?  The  land,  or  much  of  it,  must  be  raised  high  and  dry,  not  less  than  three 
feet  above  mean  high  tide,  by  dredging  the  channels  to  obtain  filling  for  the  islands.  The 
common  way  in  which  this  is  done  is  simply  by  digging  out  and  filling  jn  so  that  whatever 
comes  out  last  remains  on  top  and  the  best  soil  is  buried  deepest.  In  this  case  the  top 
would  be  pure  sand,  which,  of  course,  would  never  do  for  a  park.  The  marsh  averages 
about  four  feet  three  inches  thick;  twelve  or  eighteen  inches  of  this  could  be  removed 
to  be  spread  over  the  top  when  the  sub-filling  was  deep  enough.  But  here  is  a  possible 
solution  of  an  important  civic  problem.  Last  summer,  when  the  garbage  strike  raged 
most  furiously,  and  the  garbage  smelled  most  villainously,  I  went  through  the  east  side 
and  saw  many  tons  of  it  on  the  streets.  Excepting  for  the  addition  of  sundry  old  hats, 
pieces  of  wood  and  the  like,  it  did  not  differ  radically  in  composition  from  the  gardener's 
compost  heap,  consisting,  as  it  did  mainly,  of  banana  skins,  vegetable  refuse  and  the  like 
which,  mixed  with  soil  or  ashes  or  both,  will  in  two  or  three  years  disintegrate  into  fine 
and  very  fertile  black  soil.  At  present  the  city's  garbage  is  taken  to  Barren  Island,  where 
the  oil  is  squeezed  out  of  it  and  the  refuse  dumped  into  the  Jersey  meadows  ten  or  twelve 
feet  deep  for  filling.  Now  there  are  removed  from  Brooklyn  alone  every  year  750,000 
cubic  yards  of  ashes,  and  these,  mixed  with  the  garbage  or  garbage  refuse  and  street  sweep- 


The 


Sunset  on   Big   Fi  m   (  reek   Among   mi    Marshes  ni  \k  Bergen 
juettc  of  woods  against  the  sk\  is  fascinating  in  itself,  but  cuts  of]  the  view  of  everything  beyond 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  95 

ings,  and  spread  over  the  marshes  with  a  thin  covering  of  ashes  or  soil  over  the  top  to 
deodorize  the  whole — which  it  will  do  effectively — would  in  the  course  of  time  cover  the 
whole  land  surface  of  the  park  with  a  good  depth  of  fine  soil,  at  the  same  time  providing  a 
convenient  and  profitable  dumping  ground  for  the  city  refuse  for  many  years  to  come. 
Under  such  a  system,  the  whole  marsh  surface  could,  in  the  course  of  time,  be  filled.    But 
for  park  uses  it  would  not  be  essential  to  raise  all  the  marshes;  some  of  them  could  be  left 
for  their  scenic  beauty  unless  it  were  found  more  convenient  to  fill  them;  and  all  filling 
might  be  arranged  so  as  to  further  the  plan  of  whichever  report  were  adopted  in  case  the 
land  should  ever  be  required.    The  borders  of  the  various  islands  can  be  built  of  lumps 
of  sod  cut  from  the  marsh,  as  is  now  being  done  in  places  where  filling  is  going  on,  and  which 
wili  prevent  the  sand  and  other  filling  from  washing  into  the  bay,  and  be  in  itself  ornamental. 
It  is  not  worth  while  at  this  stage  to  propose  any  definite  layout  for  this  archipelago, 
this  larger  Venice  without  the  buildings.    It  would  be  difficult  and  very  tedious  to  devise 
a  better  division  of  land  and  water  than  now  exists.    It  would  be  merely  necessary  to 
widen   some    of    the   channels,  perhaps   close   some    few   others,  and   dredge   as    much 
filling   from   the  water  area   as   might  be   necessary  to  raise  the  land  to  the  requisite 
height.     The   principal   means   of  access  to,   and    circulation    in,   the    park    would    be 
by   means   of  excursion   steamboats   starting   from   convenient   points   along    the    shore 
of  the  bay,  and  touching  at  the  principal   islands.    There  should   be   no  elaborate  and 
costly  road  system,  but  I  would  propose  one  wide  boulevard  running  across  the  bay 
alongside  the  Long  Island  Railroad  so  as  to  make  one  set  of  drawbridges  serve  for  both 
steam  and  other  traffic.    There  might  be  one  or  two  branches  traversing  some  of  the 
larger  islands,  but  all  should  be  arranged  to  use  as  few  bridges  as  possible  as  they  would 
clearly  be  a  hindrance  to  sailing  and  other  floating  traffic  for  which  the  park  would  mainly 
exist.    If  roads  were  made  traversing  several  of  the  islands  it  would  be  better  in  some  cases 
to  connect  some  of  them  by  filling,  rather  than  by  bridges;  but,  as  a  great  deal  of  the  charm 
of  the  region  does  and  would  consist  in  its  intricacy,  it  would  be  well  to  avoid,  so  far  as 
possible,  diminishing  the  number  of  channels.    The  lanes  and  byways  of  water  would  be 
even  more  attractive  than  the  wide  highways.    I  would  propose  no  formal  layout  of  walks 
on  the  islands  or  at  least  only  a  few,  as  the  landmarks  on  the  mainland  and  other  places 
would  always  be  visible  to  guide  those  wishing  to  know  where  they  were.    I  think  the 
best  planting  treatment  would  be  a  miscellaneous  one  of  shrubs  and  native  plants,  repro- 
ducing, so  far  as  possible,  what  might  be  natural  conditions  in  such  a  place,  and  preserving 
the  feeling  of  flatness,  monotony,  and  vast  extent.   It  is  true  that  if  the  ground  were  raised 
several  feet  above  the  water  surface  and  the  foliage  line  several  feet  higher  still,  there 
would   be   nothing  beyond  the  immediate   foreground   visible  to  those  in  row-,  sail-,  or 
motor-boats;  but  from  the  shores,  the  railroad,  the  boulevards,  the  buildings,  and  the  decks 
of  ships  in  the  harbor  and  excursion  steamers  the  view  would  be  nearly  as  extensive  as  it 
is  now.   A  silhouette  of  long  lines  of  woods  against  the  sky  is  tempting,  besides  having  the 
advantage  of  providing  shelter  for  visitors;  but  they  would  cut  off  the  view  of  everything 
beyond,  and  go  far  to  destroy  what  is  perhaps  the  best  expression  of  the  place — that  of 
great  expanse.    Probably  the  best  scheme  of  planting  would  rely  principally  on  shrubs 
and  plants,  with  large  masses  of  trees  so  disposed  as  never  seriously  to  obstruct  the  distant 
views  from  the  more  frequented  places.    This  would  be  a  truly  wild  park,  kept  wild  and 
uninjured  by  proper  regulations.    Place  might  be  found  for  thousands  of  summer  campers 
who  would  pay  a  small  rent  for  their  privileges  and  bring  in  a  considerable  income  to  the 


96  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

city;  this  income  would  be  augmented  by  the  receipts  from  fishing  privileges,  rent  of  boats, 
etc.  The  existing  frame  structures  should  be  gradually  replaced,  where  necessary,  by  low 
and  simple  buildings  of  brick,  concrete,  or  other  material  native  to  Long  Island.  Place 
might  be  found  for  various  public  institutions  for  which  isolation  is  an  advantage,  such  as 
hospitals  and  penal  institutions  as  is  suggested  by  the  majority  report. 

The  land  area  proposed  for  park  purposes  is  about  3,660  acres.  That  this  is  not  exces- 
sive for  a  city  such  as  New  York,  which  will  soon  be  the  most  populous  in  the  world,  is 
proved  by  the  examples  of  Paris,  London,  and  Boston  which  have  found  it  to  their  advantage 
to  set  apart  such  great  territories  for  park  purposes,  much  of  it  even  beyond  their  own 
boundaries.  The  Corporation  Counsel  claims  that  the  city  has  already  good  and  clear 
title  to  all  this  land,  though  the  Attorney  General  of  the  state  of  New  York  claims  that 
title  is  vested  in  the  state.  In  either  case  it  seems  clear  that  its  acquisition  by  the  city  would 
be  easy  and  economical,  and  that  New  York  has  an  opportunity  of  acquiring,  perhaps  for 
fifty,  perhaps  for  one  hundred  years,  perhaps  for  all  time,  a  public  recreation  ground 
quite  unique  in  character  and  whose  value  it  is  not  possible  to  estimate. 


COST  OF  LANDSCAPE  DEVELOPMENT 

By    FREDERICK    LAW    OLMSTED 
(Meeting  of  December  10.   1907) 

THE  landscape  architect  needs  to  take  account  of  the  cost  of  maintenance  of  the 
work  he  designs  for  two  kinds  of  reasons: 
The  first  are  concerned  with  absolute  costs,  a  knowledge  of  which  is  needful 
if  a  client  is  to  be  guarded  against  undertaking  improvements  of  a  kind  and  extent  which 
he  will  subsequently  find  himself  unable  or  unwilling  to  pay  for  maintaining,  to  his  own 
dissatisfaction  and  to  the  discredit  of  his  advisor  and  the  profession.  If  the  wisdom, 
honesty,  and  knowledge  of  landscape  architects  were  equal  to  the  situation,  when  asked 
for  an  estimate  of  the  cost  of  a  proposed  improvement  they  would  include  an  estimate 
of  the  maintenance-cost,  which  is  usually  just  as  vital  a  question  as  the  first  cost,  and 
sometimes  more  so. 

The  second  set  of  reasons  are  concerned  with  the  relative  cost  of  maintaining  land 
under  alternative  methods  of  improvement,  between  which  the  landscape  architect,  or 
the  client  acting  under  his  advice,  has  the  opportunity  of  choosing.  Here  considerations 
of  maintenance-cost  affect,  in  a  very  intimate  and  detailed  way,  the  design  of  any  improve- 
ments about  which  a  landscape  architect  may  be  consulted.  It  is  indeed  the  usual  practice 
to  take  them  into  account  where  differences  in  maintenance-cost  are  very  obvious  and 
large;  but  the  available  information  on  the  subject  depends  far  too  much  on  vague  general 
impressions.  A  more  accurate  and  systematic  knowledge  of  maintenance-costs  on  the 
part  of  landscape  architects,  used  in  a  more  systematic  way,  would  greatly  increase  the 
value  of  their  services  to  clients,  and  would  frequently  suffice  to  bring  about  that  much- 
to-be-desired  permanency  of  consultation  between  clients  and  their  original  professional 
advisors,  the  lack  of  which  so  often  results  in  needless  mutilation  of  the  original  plan 
and  much  waste  of  effort  and  money. 

It  is  difficult  to  secure  accurate,  reliable,  and  intelligible  data  in  regard  to  costs  of 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  97 

maintenance;  but  the  difficulties  are  in  no  way  different  in  kind  from  those  that  stand 
in  the  way  of  getting  the  original  data  on  which  to  base  estimates  of  first  cost,  which  has 
been  tolerably  well  done  for  many  elements  of  landscape  work,  mainly  by  contractors. 
The  basis  must  be  a  more  or  less  considerable  number  of  cost-accounts,  kept  not  only 
with  accuracy  and  discrimination,  but  in  accordance  with  some  tolerably  uniform  schedule 
of  subdivisions.  The  following  is  a  preliminary  discussion  of  certain  principles  in  keeping 
and  interpreting  cost-accounts,  and  is  prepared  in  hope  that  it  may  lead  to  the  assembling 
of  some  detailed  and  accurately  comparable  data  upon  the  subject,  from  which  landscape 
architects  and  superintendents,  if  they  use  them  rightly,  may  draw  helpful  conclusions. 
Any  cost-accounts  will  mislead  if  they  are  used  mechanically  and  unintelligently,  and 
even  the  loosest  accounts  are  capable  of  yielding  useful  information,  if  used  intelligently  by 
a  man  who  keeps  his  common  sense  wide  awake  all  the  time;  but  the  more  closely  the  form 
of  the  cost-accounts  is  adapted  to  yielding  the  precise  kind  of  information  that  is  wanted, 
the  more  valuable  will  be  the  information  to  be  derived  from  them  by  the  application 
of  a  given  amount  of  intelligence. 

The  factors  in  cost  of  maintenance  of  grounds  may  be  divided  into  two  principal 
groups: 

A.  Initial  factors,  which  are  settled  before  the  maintenance-work  begins.  In  this 
group  are  included  such  factors  as:  (1)  Character  of  areas  to  be  maintained  and  extent 
of  each  (e.  g.,  acres  of  clipped  lawn,  acres  of  hayfield,  square  yards  of  macadam  road, 
acres  of  woodland,  etc.);  (2)  Quality  of  original  improvement  as  affecting  amount 
of  repairs  and  renewals  (including  gradients  of  roads,  quality  of  macadam,  character 
of  soil  preparation  in  lawns,  etc.);  (3)  Convenience  or  inconvenience  of  arrangements 
provided  for  doing  maintenance-work;  (4)  Natural  drawbacks  or  advantages  of  the  locality, 
climatic,  topographic,  and  otherwise. 

B.  Administrative  factors,  which  vary  during  the  progress  of  maintenance.  These 
fall  under  three  main  heads:  (1)  Price  of  labor  and  supplies;  (2)  Quality  of  upkeep 
required;  (3)   Efficiency  of  management. 

Obviously,  for  any  given  set  of  initial  factors  the  maintenance-cost  will  vary  directly 
as  the  prices  and  as  the  quality  of  upkeep  and  inversely  as  the  efficiency  of  management. 

Ordinarily  the  immediate  purpose  in  keeping  cost-accounts  is  to  afford  an  indication 
of  the  efficiency  of  management,  by  comparison  either  with  previous  costs  on  the  same 
piece  of  work,  or  with  costs  in  other  cases  where  the  initial  factors  are  similar,  or  where 
allowances  can  be  made  for  differences  in  the  initial  factors.  To  make  such  comparisons 
instructively  either  the  price  factor  and  the  quality  of  upkeep  must  remain  fixed,  or  allow- 
ance must  be  made  for  the  differences  in  those  factors.  In  regard  to  the  price  of  materials, 
to  do  this  in  detail  would  be  very  difficult;  but,  in  the  kind  of  maintenance  we  are  consid- 
ering, the  labor-cost  is  so  very  large  a  proportion  of  the  whole  that  it  is  usually  pretty 
fair  to  make  allowance  for  differences  in  the  price  factor  on  the  basis  of  the  difference 
in  the  price  of  labor.  Barring  dishonesty  (in  the  form  of  padded  pay-rolls  and  connivance 
at  "soldiering"  because  of  political  considerations,  etc.),  which  is  properly  chargeable 
to  inefficiency  of  administration  either  "higher  up"  or  lower  down,  the  price  per  hour  of 
common  labor  affords  a  pretty  fair  basis  of  comparison  for  the  price-factor  in  the  cost  of 
maintenance,  and  it  is  always  easily  to  be  learned  and  easily  applied. 

For  example:  The  city  of  Hartford  pays  for  labor  on  its  parks  $1.75  per  day  of  nine 
hours;  the  city  of  Boston  pays  $2  per  day  of  eight  hours.    The  rate  per  hour  in  Hartford 


98  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

is  19/^2  cents;  in  Boston  25  cents,  or  1.28  times  the  Hartford  rate.  In  making  comparison 
of  the  costs  of  maintenance  per  acre  for  a  certain  character  of  landscape  treatment  in  the 
parks  of  those  two  cities,  with  the  purpose  of  getting  some  gauge  upon  the  relative  efficiency 
of  administration,  the  actual  cost  in  Hartford  should  therefore  be  increased  by  28  per 
cent.  If,  in  any  case,  after  such  an  allowance  is  made  for  the  difference  in  the  price-factor, 
there  appears  a  considerable  difference  in  costs,  while  it  will  not  afford  a  positive  and 
direct  measure  of  the  relative  efficiency  of  the  two  administrations,  it  will  be  a  signal  to 
examine  more  critically  the  other  factors;  and  if  the  quality  of  upkeep  appears  from 
personal  observation  to  be  no  lower  in  the  case  where  the  cost  is  lower  it  indicates  greater 
net  efficiency  in  one  case  than  the  other,  and  suggests  an  inquiry  into  the  means  by  which 
this  greater  efficiency  is  secured,  means  which  are  probably  within  the  reach  of  the  other 
manager  when  his  attention  is  thus  called  to  them. 

It  is  this  aspect  of  cost-accounts  as  furnishing  an  approximate  gauge  of  the  relative 
efficiency  of  different  methods  employed  in  different  places,  or  at  different  times  in  the 
same  place,  or  at  least  as  calling  attention  to  the  particular  points  where  comparison  of 
methods  and  results  is  most  likely  to  be  instructive,  that  chiefly  interests  superintendents, 
park  commissioners  and  owners  of  property,  when  they  no  longer  have  extensive  improve- 
ments to  make,  but  are  confronted  with  the  problem  of  economical  and  efficient  maintenance. 

To  the  landscape  architect  and  to  his  client,  when  confronted  with  problems  of  design 
and  improvement,  the  interest  lies  upon  the  other  side.  The  question  is  this:  Assuming 
normal  conditions  as  to  all  three  of  the  administrative  factors  (prices,  quality  of  upkeep 
and  efficiency  of  management),  what  will  be  the  effect  on  the  cost  of  maintenance  of 
differences  in  such  of  the  initial  factors  as  are  under  the  designer's  control?  Practically 
the  question  presents  itself  in  connection  with  two  kinds  of  choice,  the  choice  between 
alternative  methods  of  treating  a  given  area  and  the  choice  as  to  the  relative  extent  of 
areas  to  be  devoted  to  different  kinds  of  treatment.  For  example,  in  a  certain  spot  a  "wild 
garden"  of  carefully  chosen  and  skilfully  arranged  herbaceous  plants  would  look  very 
well  and  be  very  enjoyable,  but  the  same  place  would  still  be  beautiful  even  though  some- 
what less  attractive  and  interesting  if  planted  with  a  simple  mass  of  shrubs  around  a 
piece  of  greensward.  To  decide  wisely  between  these  alternative  methods  of  treatment 
some  one  ought  to  consider  what  the  difference  in  cost  of  maintenance  will  be,  and  whether 
in  that  particular  locality  the  more  elaborate  treatment  would  be  enough  pleasanter  to 
be  worth  the  difference.  On  the  other  hand,  it  may  appear  that  a  design  involving  three 
acres  of  formal  garden,  eight  acres  of  lawn,  and  four  acres  of  shrub-  and  tree-plantations, 
is  more  attractive  than  another  involving  two  acres  of  formal  garden,  five  acres  of  lawn, 
and  eight  acres  of  shrub-  and  tree-plantation,  and  the  question  is:  About  how  much 
more  will  it  take  to  keep  the  former  in  good  condition,  and  is  it  enough  more  attractive 
to  be  worth  the  extra  cost? 

In  getting  data  for  answering  such  questions,  allowance  can  be  made,  as  before, 
for  differences  in  the  price-factor;  but  cases  of  abnormal  quality  of  upkeep,  either  high 
or  low,  and  cases  of  either  extreme  inefficiency  or  very  unusual  efficiency  must  simply 
be  eliminated  in  getting  at  averages  of  cost.  What  is  most  instructive,  however,  is  not 
a  mechanical  average  but  a  condensed  statement  of  a  number  of  cases  with  an  indication 
of  the  relative  qualities  of  upkeep  and  degrees  of  efficiency  as  deduced  from  general 
observation. 

Of  the  initial  factors,  differences  in  the  extent  of  the  area  to  be  maintained  in  any 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  99 

given  manner  may  usually  be  allowed  for  by  assuming  that  the  cost  varies  in  direct  pro- 
portion to  the  area,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  there  is  some  saving  in  dealing  with  large 
areas.  But,  with  small  places,  where  the  permanent  force  consists  of  one  or  two  or  three  men, 
and  it  is  not  practicable  to  hire  extra  men  by  the  day  or  hour  when  needed,  the  increase 
in  cost  due  to  increasing  the  amount  of  work,  whether  by  enlarging  the  areas  of  main- 
tenance, or  otherwise,  must  move  by  perceptible  jumps,  each  jump  corresponding  to 
the  addition  of  another  man  to  the  permanent  force. 

On  this  account,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons,  it  is  very  useful  to  have  data  reduced 
to  the  form  of  stating  how  many  hours'  labor  per  week,  or  per  month,  is  required  to 
maintain  an  acre  (or  other  unit  of  area)  of  ground  of  a  given  kind  up  to  a  given  standard 
of  quality  of  upkeep.  By  making  statements  in  this  form,  or  even  so  as  to  show  the  extent 
of  area  of  a  given  kind  one  man  can  keep  up  to  a  given  standard,  it  is  possible,  in  a  pre- 
liminary comparison,  to  eliminate  differences  in  price  of  labor  and  in  the  precise  extent 
of  the  particular  areas. 

But  in  drawing  conclusions  from  any  such  data,  it  is  necessary,  further,  to  make 
allowance  for  material  differences  in  the  quality  and  thoroughness  of  the  original  improve- 
ment. These,  like  differences  in  quality  of  upkeep,  cannot  well  be  reduced  to  simple 
arithmetical  factors,  like  differences  in  area  and  differences  in  price;  they  must  be  stated 
in  general  terms,  and  the  soundness  of  any  conclusion  based  upon  data  where  they  differ 
widely  must  depend  upon  the  soundness  of  judgment  of  the  individual  drawing  the 
conclusion. 

Some  of  the  exceedingly  meager  data  which  I  now  have  as  to  maintenance-cost  are 
shown  in  the  following  tables: 


FRAGMENTARY    DATA   AS    TO    MAINTENANCE    COST 

A.  WHOLE  PLACES— 

1.  Suburban  Place  Close  to  Boston. 

Labor. — Part  of  time  of  one  general  man  at  $40  a  month  and  board,  extra  labor  by  the  day  fur- 
nished by  contractor  at  $2.25.   Say  labor  factor,  25  cents  per  hour. 

Character  of  Place. — 

Total  area 1.80  acres 

Buildings 18    " 

Roads  and  yards '3    " 

Garden  (mostly  vegetables) '3    " 

Lawn 5° 

Balance  (trees  and  shrubbery  with  a  few  paths  and  herbaceous  beds)      .        .        .     .86 
(Design  rather  complex,  outline  of  lawn  very  irregular.) 

Quality  of  upkeep. — Fair  to  good. 

Maintenance-cost  per  acre. — Average  for  four  years,  1902-05. 

Comparative  cost 
Actual  cost  on  basis  of  labor 

Labor,  carting,  etc $304  44  at  20  cems  per  hour- 

Supplies 23   16 

Plants  and  planting 25   78 

S353  38  $282  68 

Extraordinary  repairs  and  renewals        ...  174  80  139  84 

$528.18  $422.52 


ioo  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

Area  per  man. — Two  and  one-fourth  acres.  Actually  the  one  general  man  with  occasional  helpers 
was  occupied  with  two  places  of  similar  character  having  a  total  area  of  about  two  and  three- 
fourths  acres. 

2.  Suburban  Place  in  New  Jersey,  One  Hour  from  New  York. 

Labor. — One  Italian  at  $1.50  per  day  continuously,  except  in  bad  weather,  with  a  little  extra  work 
by  a  choreman  and  gardener. 

Character  of  Place. — 

Total  area 3  acres 

Lawn 1       " 

Vegetable  garden \%      " 

Balance  (trees  and  shrubbery  with  a  small  drive-turn  and  a  very  few  paths)  .      H      " 

Quality  of  upkeep. — Fair  to  poor. 

Area  per  man. — About  three  acres. 

3.  Quasi-Suburban  Country  Place  of  Large  Size.    Long   Island,  about  One  Hour  from  New 

York. 

Labor. — $1.50  per  nine-hour  day  for  common  labor,  factor  about  17^2  cents  per  hour. 

Character  0/  Place. — Landscape  portion,  excluding  farm  lands,  contains  twenty-two  acres,  including 
three  miles  of  macadam  road  about  16  feet  wide,  mostly  grass  bordered;  grounds  immediately 
about  house,  largely  in  turf  terraces  with  a  few  beds  of  annuals,  about  three  acres;  a  nursery 
of  one  and  three-fourth  acres;  balance  made  up  of  lawn  partly  hand-mowed  among  trees  and 
partly  horse-mowed,  with  considerable  areas  in  trees  with  undergrowth. 

Quality  0}  upkeep. — Fair  to  good. 

Maintenance  cost  per  acre,  1906. — Actual  cost,  $254.00 ;  comparative  cost  on  basis  of  labor  at  20 
cents  per  hour,  $290.28.  (This  includes  labor,  supplies,  tools,  etc.,  but  not  charges  for 
improvement  planting.) 

Area  per  man. — About  two  and  one-half  acres.  This  does  not  include,  in  area  or  in  cost,  the  kitchen- 
garden,  four  acres,  or  the  greenhouses,  11,600  square  feet  of  glass.  If  the  kitchen-garden 
were  included,  with  allowance  for  the  value  of  its  produce,  the  cost  would  be  about  $306  per 
acre  actual,  or  on  the  basis  of  labor  at  20  cents,  $349.70.) 

4.  Country  Place  on  Long  Island,  about  One  Hour  from  New  York. 

Labor. — Prices  not  known. 

Character  of  Place. — 

Cultivated  fields 36.0  acres 

Pasture 35.4  " 

Garden  .  3.4  " 

Orchard,  golf-links,  and  tennis-courts 10.0  " 

Lawn  and  shrubbery  near  garden 2.0  " 

House-grounds  (lawn,  shrubbery,  perennials,  one-fourth  mile  of  road,  complex  design)  4.0  " 

Cottage  grounds  (lawn  and  scattered  trees) 4.0      " 

Woodland,  about 150.0  " 

Total  area,  about 250.0      " 

Roads  about  one  and  one-half  miles;  gravel. 

Quality  0/  upkeep.-Fa.ir  to  good. 

Average  area  per  man. — Twenty-five  acres  (teams  are  hired  extra). 

Area  0}  house-grounds  per  man. — Four  acres. 

Area  0/  garden  per  man. — One  to  one  and  one-third  acres. 

B.  GARDENS:  KITCHEN-GARDENS  AND  MIXED  GARDENS  FOR  VEGETABLES,  FLOWERS, 
AND  FRUIT. 

1.  Garden  on  a  Country  Place  on  Long  Island,  about  One  Hour   from  New  York.    (Same 
place  as  A  3.) 
Labor. — About  17^  cents  per  hour. 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  101 

Character. — 

Large  fruits  (dwarf  trees,  trained) 3-i  acres 

Small  fruits H       " 

Rough  crops  (such  as  asparagus,  potatoes,  and  corn) I  y£      " 

Balance,  vegetables \yi      " 

Total  area 4  " 

Loose  gravel  walks  with  grass  edging  and  a  border  of  hardy  perennials  along  walk. 
Quality  of  upkeep. — Good. 
Gross  cost  per  acre,  1906. — Actual  cost,  $460.00;  comparative  cost  on  basis  of  labor  at  20  cents 

per  hour,  $525.00. 

(Cost  believed  by  manager  to  be  abnormally  high  this  year.    Value  of  vegetables  and  small 

fruit  produced,  $285  per  acre.    No  credit  for  flowers,  and  practically  none  for  large  fruits, 

as  trees  are  still  too  young.) 
Area  per  man. — About  one  and  one-fourth  acres.(?) 

2.  On  Country  Place  in  Pennsylvania. 

Labor. — Prices  not  known. 

Character. — Total  area  of  garden  one  and  three-fourths  acres  in  vegetables  and  small  fruits,  with 

few  flowers  and  a  very  few  dwarf  large  fruits. 
Quality  of  upkeep. — Poor;  (a  fair  yield  but  shabby  looking).  Gardener  said  he  thought  it  got  about 

the  equivalent  of  one  man's  time  on  the  average. 
Area  per  mart. — Equivalent  to  about  three  acres. 

3.  Vegetable-garden  on  Suburban  Place  in  New  Jersey.    (Same  place  as  A-2.) 

Character. — Garden,  one  and  one-fourth  acres,  devoted  almost  wholly  to  vegetables  with  no  attempt 
at  good  looks,  but  well  cultivated  and  fairly  neat.  Takes  part  of  one  man's  time,  with  some 
work  and  personal  direction  by  the  lady  of  the  house. 

Quality  oj  upkeep. — Fair  to  poor. 

Area  per  man. — Equivalent  to  about  two  acres. 

4.  Garden  on  a  Country  Place  on  Long  Island,  about  One  Hour  from  New  York.    (Same  place 

as  A-4.) 
Labor. — Prices  not  known. 
Character. — Consists  of  vegetables,  small  fruits  and  flowers,  with  some  turf  walks,  some  gravel 

walks,  perennial  borders,  hedges  and  an  arbor.   Total  area  three  to  four  acres. 
Quality  oj  upkeep. — Good. 
Area  per  man. — Equivalent  to  about  one  to  one  and  one-third  acres. 

C.  PUBLIC  PARKS— 

1.  Approximate  Figures  Based  on  G.  A.  Parker's  Observations.  Ar?a  per  malJof 

maintenance-lorce 
(a)   For  elaborate  parks  with  much  gardening  work,  like  Boston  Public  Gardens  .  1  acre 

(6)   For  the  usual  lawn-kept  park 5  or  6  acres 

(c)   For  a  country  park  about 20  acres 

2.  Baltimore  Parks,  1906-07.   Notes  from  W.  S.  Manning. 

Class  1.  Small  city  squares,  triangles,  and  parkings *2.5  acres 

(Total  area  in  this  class  of  maintenance,  about  100  acres.) 
Class  2.  That  portion  of  large  parks  maintained  as  driveways,  paths,  lawns  and   plan- 
tations, in  areas  varying  from  forty  to  one  hundred  and  twenty-five  acres  in  one 

park *4#4  acres 

(Total  area  in  this  class  of  maintenance  330  acres.   One  team  per  fourteen  acres  in 
addition. 
Class  3.    That  part  of  large  parks  kept  as  fields  and  mowed  two  to  four  times  a  year,  or 

as  woods,  or  in  water *25   acres 

(Total  area  in  this  class  of  maintenance  770  acres.     One  team  per  64  acres  in 
addition.) 
*These  areas  are  figured  on  the  maintenance-force  exclusive  of  teams. 


102  AMERICAN  SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

COST  PER  ACRE  FOR  LABOR  OF  THE  DIFFERENT  PARK  AREAS  OF  HART- 
FORD, CONNECTICUT,  FOR  THE  YEARS  ENDING  MAY  1,  1902,  1903,  1904,  1905 


SQUARES  AND  SMALL  PARKS 


Washington  Square  (0.06  acres)    . 
Maple  Avenue  Green  (0.12  acres) 
Village  Street  (0.16  acres)     . 
Franklin  Avenue  Green  (0.20  acres) 
Buckingham  Square  (0.32  acres) 
Campfield  (0.34  acres) 
Lafayette  Park  (0.62  acres) 
Tunnell  Park  (0.65  acres) 
Ancient  Cemetery  (1.32  acres) 
Barnard  Park  (1.71  acres)     . 
Sigourney  Square  (2.85  acres) 


1902 

$106  77 

149  58 

248  80 

97  45 
174  00 
223  55 
112  79 
1 11  92 
200  00 
166  20 

71  80 


1903 

$216  66 

165  50 

83  37 
113  20 
195  32 
263  53 
121  85 
118  43 
221  03 
175  64 

80  68 


1904 
$96  00 
"66  33 

76  12 
"3  25 
177  27 
204  64 
100  46 
137  01 
160  83 
165  55 

91  63 


1905 
$97  OO 
165  33 

62  00 
145  65 
187  34 
148  62 
112  48 
183  13 
151  40 
160  72 

70  18 


Average  for 
four  years 
$129  II 
l6l  69 
117  70 
117  39 
183  48 
210  09 
III  90 
137  62 
183  31 
167   03 

78  57 


LARGER  PARKS 

Bushnell  Park  (42  acres) $106  77         $ 

Elizabeth  Park(ioo  acres) 39  86 

Pope  Park  (90  acres) 26  61 

Riverside  Park  (80  acres) 26  38 

Goodwin  Park  (200  acres) 12  20 

Total,  520.35  acres.   Average  per  acre,  smaller  parks,  4  yrs. 
Average  per  acre,  larger  parks,  4  yrs. 


1 1  01 
56  74 
30  83 
20  17 
15  88 


$121  99 
60  42 
36  15 
21  90 
15  43 


S101  16 
49  98 
31  08 
23  43 
11  73 


$110  23 
51  75 
31  17 
22  97 
13  81 
145  26 
47  48 


SUMMARY 

Whole  Suburban  Places  or  equivalent  maln^nfnce 

A-i Fair 

A-2 Fair 

A-3 Fair 

Gardens 

B-i Good 

B-2 Poor 

B-3 Poorish 

B-4 Good 

C-i  A  Public  Garden 

Parks 

C-2,  Small  Squares 

C-2,  Large  parks  "finished  portion" 

C-2,  Large  parks,  "rough  portion" 

C-3,  Average  in  Hartford 


Cost  per 
ere  on  basis  of  20  cts. 
per  hour  for  labor 

$258.57 


290 . 28 


525.OO 


Acres 
per  man 
2.25 

3 

2-5 


2-5 

4-4 

25. 
10. 


THE  RELATIONS  OF  THE  ARCHITECT  AND  THE 
LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECT 

By  C.  HOWARD   WALKER 
(Meeting  of  January  14.  1908) 

I  SHALL  speak  this  evening  of  the  mutual  relations  and  courtesies  existing  between 
architects  and  landscape  architects,  of  the  differences  of  their  points  of  view,  and 
what  may  reasonably  be  expected  of  each. 

First,  in  regard  to  a  certain  lack  of  comprehensive  scheme  in  the  work,  and  neglect 
on  the  part  of  each  to  coordinate,  which  I  am  inclined  to  think  is  more  on  the  part  of  the 
architect  than  of  the  landscape  architect.  In  many  cases  the  landscape  architect  is  required 
to  adjust  his  work  to  buildings  already  poorly  placed,  and  he  is  sadly  handicapped  because 
of  that  fact;  in  other  cases  the  architect  finds  the  environment  ill  conceived  for  the  purposes 
of  his  building.  In  both  cases,  the  fault  is  not  so  much  in  a  general  plan,  but  in  the  neglect 
of  the  third  dimension. 

Both  architects  and  landscape  architects  plan  logically  and  well,  so  far  as  superficial 
areas  are  concerned,  but  both  fail,  at  times,  to  appreciate  the  resultant  perspectives  caused 
by  the  erection  of  solids,  whether  they  be  buildings  or  trees,  and  especially  the  sequence 
of  vistas  caused  by  changes  of  the  points  of  view.  Masses  appeal  less  than  do  plan  and 
elevation.    This  fact  is  often  evident  in  the  projects  of  the  Beaux  Arts  men. 

The  "parti  pris"  for  the  Buffalo  Exposition  was  admirable,  both  in  the  general  plan 
and  in  the  relation  of  the  buildings  to  each  other,  but  the  effect  of  contours  of  surface 
was  obviously  neglected,  so  that  in  walking  from  one  portion  of  the  grounds  to  another 
the  bases  of  buildings  were  often  unseen  until  near  at  hand,  and  bridges  and  ramps  and 
terraces  confused  the  general  conception  of  the  plan  instead  of  enhancing  it.  Undulations 
of  surface  and  minor  factors  of  plan  became  of  relatively  too  great  importance  for  the 
formal  monumental  character  of  the  work. 

There  are  two  distinct  sorts  of  design  occurring  in  the  planning  of  a  city  or  of  a  town: 

First,  the  intimate,  picturesque  arrangement  with  somewhat  romantic  detail. 

Second,  the  broad,  formal,  so-called  classical  treatment. 

Each  is  occasioned  by  the  conditions  of  the  problem. 

It  is  characteristic  of  picturesque  work  that  it  is  produced  more  satisfactorily  by 
successive  growths  than  by  an  initial  scheme,  and  that  it  occurs  among  the  requirements 
of  a  few  people  rather  than  of  many  people.  It  is  inherent  in  simple  household  existence, 
in  the  lives  of  small  communities,  and  in  a  focused  and  isolated  condition;  and,  as  require- 
ments increase,  as  numbers  multiply,  and  greater  factors  are  requisite,  formal  order  is 
found  more  generally  to  fulfil  the  requirements,  and,  little  by  little,  the  classical  schemes 
replace  the  picturesqueness  of  accidental  groupings.  Because  of  this  fact,  deliberately 
planned  picturesqueness  is  apt  to  appear  artificial,  and  requires  very  great  care  in  design. 

The  conditions  requiring  a  classical  scheme  are  those  which  produced  classical 
architecture. 

In  Greece  there  were  large  congregations  of  people  before  temples  were  built,  and 
the  demand  for  the  accommodation  of  crowds  created  the  formal  and  classical  arrange- 
ment of  buildings  and  grounds;  therefore,  at  present,  when  we  wish  to  provide  for  adequate 

(103) 


104  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

circulation  for  many  people,  we  naturally  revert  to  the  classical,  formal  plan;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  it  would  be  as  absurd  deliberately  to  plan  a  village  formally  as  it  would  be  to 
plan  a  larger  city  picturesquely.  In  each,  minor  factors  can  partake  of  the  character  of 
the  opposite  scheme;  but  the  mere  conception  of  large  work  is  on  broad  lines  and  of  small 
work  upon  smaller  detail. 

Broad,  direct,  and  adequate  avenues  of  communication  are  necessary  in  large  cities. 
The  need  is  to  be  felt,  however,  in  large  planning,  of  the  secondary  planning  after  the 
main  lines  of  circulation,  the  "rond  points,"  etc.,  are  determined. 

Each  island,  so  to  speak,  left  between  the  main  avenues  becomes  a  subject  for  indi- 
vidual treatment,  and,  in  proportion  to  its  size,  partakes  more  and  more  of  the  type  of 
plan  for  a  small  community  by  itself.  The  element  of  picturesque  planning  can  well  enter 
into  these  smaller  factors.  For  instance,  the  gridiron  plan  is  everywhere  equally  formal, 
and  would  gain  interest  by  having  variety  in  the  size  and  directions  of  its  smaller  streets 
between  the  great  avenues.  Versailles  lacks  interest  from  the  excessive  formality  of  its 
plan,  while  the  villas  of  Frascati  and  of  Genoa  and  of  Rome  are  fascinating  because  of 
the  constant  variety  of  plan  occasioned  by  an  appreciation  of  contrast  and  purpose. 

The  Germans  are  at  present  studying  this  phase  of  the  problem,  are  advocating 
variety  of  treatment  of  street-planning  and  the  use  of  short  streets  and  curved  lines. 
Even  in  large  boulevards  and  important  avenues  of  circulation  the  vistas  should  not  be 
too  long.  Too  often  vistas  fade  away  in  the  distance,  and  there  is  no  line  of  demarcation 
between  one  district  and  another,  such  as  can  be  obtained  by  a  tower,  an  arch,  or  other 
monuments  upon  the  axes  of  the  avenues.  The  Sieges-allee  in  Berlin  is  ineffective  because 
of  too  long  a  vista.  The  scheme  for  the  improvement  of  Washington  is  peculiarly  satis- 
factory, as  the  long  vista  of  the  mall  is  well  terminated  at  either  end,  and  is  flanked  by 
a  less  formal  arrangement  of  paths  and  trees  and  buildings  which  afford  excellent  contrasts. 

Finally,  after  the  main  scheme  is  established  and  the  harmonious,  but  contrasting, 
schemes  of  the  smaller  areas  determined,  there  remains  the  study  of  minor  details.  In 
some  cases  there  are  gardens  and  arrangements  of  trees,  hedges,  labyrinths,  fountains, 
pavilions,  etc.,  and  often  this  study  leads  to  the  skylines  and  shadows  of  adjacent  build- 
ings. A  formal  building  impels  a  formal  approach;  a  picturesque  approach  demands  a 
certain  amount  of  variety  of  light  and  shade  in  buildings  related  to  it. 

In  my  working  with  landscape  architects  their  contention  has  been  that  my  desire 
was  often  for  work  that  was  not  sufficiently  formal,  and  yet  upon  completion  it  has  seemed 
to  me  that  the  result  of  their  work  has  not  been  thoroughly  orchestrated  and  detailed. 
Slight  adaptations  of  surface-grades,  creating  low  terraces,  are  often  superior  to  undula- 
ting surfaces  and  balustrades  require  recurring  accents  to  establish  a  scale.  Orchestration 
increases  naturally  with  the  growth  of  foliage,  when  it  is  not  apparent  at  first,  and  the 
landscape  architect  is  fortunate  in  having  nature  create  for  him  a  multitude  of  details, 
which  the  architect  is  denied  by  lack  of  means. 

One  of  the  chief  improvements  which  could  be  obtained  by  the  coordination  of 
architects  and  landscape  architects  comes  from  this  very  luxuriance  of  growth  of  foliage; 
that  is,  uncouth  and  inharmonious  masses  of  architecture  could  be  planted  out.  And  an 
order,  of  a  kind,  can  be  created  from  the  disorder  of  our  streets.  There  is  many  a  building 
which  would  be  improved  by  being  set  behind  trees  and  covered  with  ivy. 

On  the  other  hand,  we  frequently  fail  to  govern  nature  as  it  approaches  the  dwellings 
of  man;  we  are  so  fond  of  the  call  of  the  wild,  that  we  let  the  tangle  of  brushwood  come 


Index  Map  of  Central  Park 


Plan  of  Central  Park  before  the 
Extension  to  iioth  Street 


J.S=JllfU=-JlllCI 

nrt~n       h *" 

Plan  of  Central  Park  after  the 
Extension  to   iioth  Street 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  105 

to  our  door-steps.  No  finished  work  of  architecture  should  be  merely  placed  upon  the 
ground  without  treatment  of  that  ground,  and  if,  as  is  often  in  the  case  of  summer  resi- 
dences, the  buildings  are  set  in  a  wilderness,  there  should  be  a  gradual  modulation  from 
the  building  to  the  wilderness.  All  of  which  implies  a  constant  study  of  ever-changing 
conditions,  and  a  mutual  accord  between  the  work  of  architects  and  of  landscape  architects, 
which  would  be  of  marked  benefit  to  both. 

In  the  subsequent  discussion,  Mr.  Caparn  remarked  that  there  were  two  kinds  of  vistas — the 
architectural  vista  which  must  be  stopped  by  some  object,  and  the  informal,  indefinite  vista,  such  as  that  of 
a  valley  between  two  ranges  of  hills,  which  should  fade  away.  It  was  the  feeling  for  this  kind  of  expression 
that  gave  rise  to  the  school  which  abolishes  boundaries.  It  was,  perhaps,  the  lack  of  scale  referred  to  by 
Mr.  Walker  that  gave  the  feeling  of  inhumanity  to  Versailles,  the  true  expression  of  those  who  created  it. 
The  principal  vista  was  not  stopped,  though  an  architectural  one,  except  by  the  setting  sun  in  summer. 
Was  it  not  possible  that  Le  Notre  had  taken  the  sun  itself,  the  emblem  of  Louis  XIV,  as  the  principal 
motive  of  his  composition? 

Mr.  Walker  said  that,  in  speaking  of  vistas,  he  was  speaking  only  of  those  of  streets.  The  vista  at 
Versailles  was  always  stopped  by  the  landscape,  and  architectural  vistas  always  should  be  stopped.  At 
Budapest  the  boulevard  is  significant  because  of  its  unstopped  length.  An  instance  of  a  fine,  unstopped 
vista  was  at  Hampton  Court. 


INTERESTING  FACTS  IN  REGARD  TO  THE  INCEP- 
TION AND  DEVELOPMENT  OF  CENTRAL  PARK 

By  SAMUEL  PARSONS,  JR. 
(Meeting  of  February  11.  1908) 

AS  the  general  conception  of  the  idea  of  laying  out  a  big  park  in  the  city  of  New 

f~\     York  was  largely  identified  with  the  efforts  of  A.  J.  Downing,  I  cannot  hope  to 

explain  the  movement  which  resulted  in  the  establishment  of  Central  Park  in  better 

words  than  has  been  done  by  Mr.  Wm.  A.  Stiles,  Editor  of  "Garden  and  Forest,"  in  his 

article  advocating  the  erection  of  a  monument  to  Andrew  Jackson  Downing  as  follows: 

THE  DEBT  OF  AMERICA  TO  A.  J.  DOWNING 

"No  one  who  has  looked  into  the  history  of  public  parks  in  American  cities,  and  the 
development  of  the  public  sentiment  which  brought  them  into  being,  will  deny  that  the 
strongest  impulse  which  the  movement  received  at  the  outset  came  from  Andrew  Jackson 
Downing.  Mr.  Downing  was  born  with  a  strong  love  of  nature,  and,  as  his  father  was  a 
nurseryman,  he  was  brought  up  in  a  calling  that  increased  his  interest  in  trees  and  planting. 
Reared  almost  in  sight  of  many  of  the  old  places  on  the  Hudson  which  had  been  planned  and 
planted  by  Parmentier  and  others  of  that  older  school,  he  learned,  while  still  young,  that 
a  landscape  could  be  made  impressive  by  the  simplest  and  most  natural  treatment.  As 
he  was  to  become  our  first  authoritative  writer  on  the  art  of  landscape  gardening,  the  whole 
country  has  occasion  to  be  thankful  that  he  was  in  this  way  led  to  adopt  what  was  then 
called  the  English  style  of  gardening,  in  which,  to  quote  his  own  words,  'the  spirit  of  nature, 
though  softened  by  art,  always  furnished  the  essential  charm,  thus  distinguishing  it  from 
the  French  or  Italian  style,  where  one  sees  the  effects  of  art  slightly  assisted  by  nature.' 


106  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

Downing  was  a  man  of  catholic  views,  but  while  he  realized  the  fact  that  vases  and  balus- 
trades and  studied  symmetry  might  be  mingled  with  foliage  enough  to  make  a  garden, 
yet  his  ideal  garden  scene  was  the  primeval  Paradise,  whose  prevading  beauty  was  found 
in  the  unstudied  simplicity  of  nature.  With  his  natural  taste  refined  by  travel  and  study, 
Downing's  treatise  on  the  'Theory  and  Practice  of  Landscape  Gardening,'  which  was 
published  in  1841,  became  at  once  the  accepted  text-book  of  rural  art  in  this  country,  and 
this  book,  passing  through  many  editions,  and  his  'Rural  Essays'  and  other  works,  are  still 
classics  in  this  branch  of  literature.  It  was  his  example  and  precept  which  inspired  such 
men  as  Henry  Winthrop  Sargent,  and  they,  in  turn,  kindled  the  enthusiasm  of  younger 
men,  so  that  the  best  private  gardens  in  America  today  owe  what  is  best  in  them  to  his 
sound  teachings. 

"Downing  was  a  graceful  and  forceful  writer  as  well  as  an  artist  of  the  highest  intelli- 
gence, and,  as  he  had  been  already  recognized  as  an  authority,  a  timely  series  of  letters  which 
he  wrote  in  1849  for  'The  Horticulturist'  on  the  subject  of  public  parks,  had  a  marked 
influence  in  creating  and  molding  popular  sentiment  in  this  direction.  These  essays,  which 
appeared  month  after  month,  and  were  widely  copied  by  the  press,  marshaled  in  a  con- 
vincing way  the  arguments  which  were  then  fresh  and  original,  although  many  of  them  have 
since  become  a  part  of  our  common  knowledge  and  belief.  He  began  by  showing  that  public 
parks  were  needed,  not  only  to  educate  the  public  taste  but  because  everybody  at  some  time 
felt  the  necessity  for  this  contact  with  nature.  He  showed  that  this  communion  was  not  only 
a  delight  to  people  who  were  as  unsophisticated  as  children,  but  that  the  more  thoughtful 
and  educated  a  community  became,  the  stronger  grew  the  passion  for  rural  pleasures.  When 
it  was  argued  that  the  people  would  not  visit  parks,  even  if  artistic  ones  were  constructed, 
he  pointed  to  the  large  cemeteries  to  prove  how  eager  all  classes  were  to  avail  themselves 
of  an  opportunity  for  a  visit  to  anything  resembling  a  park.  Mount  Auburn,  Greenwood, 
and  Laurel  Hill  had  been  already  established  for  a  quarter  of  a  century,  and  that  they  had 
come  to  be  places  of  resort  was  certainly  not  because  they  afforded  opportunity  for  solemn 
meditation  nor  for  the  artistic  value  of  the  monuments  reared  within  them.  He  truly  argued 
that  it  was  because  they  contained  bits  of  forest-land,  hills  and  dales,  copses  and  glades, 
that  they  attracted  throngs  of  visitors  in  cities  which  possessed  no  great  public  gardens, 
and  that  if  thirty  thousand  people  would  visit  Laurel  Hill  in  one  year,  many  times  that 
number  would  visit  a  public  park  in  a  city  like  Philadelphia.  He  set  his  argument  on  the 
highest  plane  at  the  very  outset,  and,  while  recognizing  the  use  of  parks  as  helping  to 
furnish  air  and  sunshine,  he  held  that  the  fostering  of  the  love  of  rural  beauty  was  quite 
as  important  an  end,  and  that  such  a  love  of  nature  helped  to  civilize  and  refine  national 
character.  Mayor  Kingsland's  proposed  park  of  a  hundred  and  sixty  acres  he  pronounced 
altogether  too  scant,  and  argued  that  five  hundred  acres  between  39th  Street  and 
the  Harlem  River  was  the  smallest  space  that  should  be  reserved  for  the  wants  of  the 
city,  since  no  area  less  than  this  could  furnish  a  rural  landscape  or  offer  space  enough  for 
broad  reaches  of  parkland  with  a  real  feeling  of  the  breadth  and  beauty  of  green  fields, 
and  the  perfume  and  freshness  of  nature.  It  was  argued  by  some  who  assumed  to  represent 
the  laboring  classes  that  the  park  would  be  monopolized  by  those  who  ride  in  their  carriages, 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  some  of  the  wealthy  and  refined  people  of  the  city  complained 
that  a  park  would  certainly  be  usurped  by  rowdies  and  low  people.  It  is  refreshing  now  to 
read  Downing's  replies  to  such  objections.  He  stoutly  asserted  that  these  social  horrors 
were  nothing  but  phantoms  of  the  imagination;  his  faith  was,  as  the  event  has  proved, 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  107 

that  rich  and  poor  could  breath  the  same  atmosphere  of  nature  and  of  art,  and  enjoy  the 
same  scenery  without  any  jealousy  or  any  conflict. 

"The  actual  work  of  constructing  Central  Park  was  not  begun  until  six  years  after 
Downing's  untimely  death,  but  it  was  his  stirring  appeals  that  aroused  the  city  to  feel 
its  need,  and  provision  to  meet  it  quickly  followed.  By  rare  good  fortune,  too,  designers 
were  found  whose  artistic  temperament  and  training  were  akin  to  his  own,  so  that  our 
first  great  urban  park  was  planned  on  such  broad  lines  as  he  would  have  approved.  The 
works  which  followed  at  once  in  Brooklyn,  Buffalo,  Chicago,  San  Francisco,  and  other 
cities  were,  beyond  question,  the  result  of  this  same  inspiration,  so  that  his  keen  foresight 
and  conscientious  devotion  to  an  idea  were  the  most  powerful  of  the  agencies  which  united 
to  initiate  the  movement  that  has  given  to  American  cities  their  thousands  of  acres  of 
parkland  during  the  past  thirty-five  years.  When  we  think  of  the  health  and  comfort, 
the  rest  and  refreshment,  the  delight  to  the  eye  and  the  imagination  which  these  smiling 
landscapes  have  given  and  will  continue  forever  to  give  to  all  the  people,  it  is  not  too  much 
to  say  that  Downing  takes  rank  among  the  greatest  benefactors  to  his  country  which  this 
century  has  produced.  It  is  now  more  than  forty  years  since  he  met  death  in  trying  to 
rescue  others.  Is  it  not  time  that  some  memorial  of  him  should  be  erected  in  the  park  which 
his  genius  secured  for  the  city?  There  are  too  many  statues  now  in  Central  Park,  such  as 
they  are,  and  it  may  be  that  a  statue  is  not  the  most  appropriate  way  of  commemorating 
the  work  of  such  a  man  as  Downing.  But  somewhere  in  grove  or  glade  it  is  certainly  possible 
to  place  a  fitting  memorial  to  one  whose  life  was  devoted  to  the  cause  of  rural  art.  We  are 
glad  to  know  that  this  thought  has  occurred  to  more  than  one  person  lately,  and  that  a 
movement  is  partially  organized  to  carry  it  into  effect.  There  can  be  little  doubt  that 
enlightened  Americans  will  delight  in  an  opportunity  to  keep  green  the  memory  of  our 
earliest  master  in  horticulture  and  landscape  art." 

These  words  fitly  commemorate  Andrew  Jackson  Downing's  important  relation  to 
the  inception  of  the  idea  of  Central  Park. 

The  first  official  action  in  the  establishment  of  Central  Park  was  taken  on  the  5th 
day  of  April,  1851,  by  Hon.  Ambrose  C.  Kingsland,  then  Mayor  of  the  city,  who  transmitted 
to  the  Board  of  Aldermen  a  special  message  setting  forth  the  limited  extent  of  the  places 
devoted  to  the  public;  their  inadequacy  to  the  wants  of  any  class  of  the  people,  and  the 
necessity,  both  from  a  moral  and  sanitary  point  of  view,  of  securing  a  more  extended  area 
for  the  purposes  of  public  recreation. 

This  message  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Lands  and  Places,  who  reported 
that  the  subject  awakened  an  uncommon  degree  of  interest,  and  that  they  heartily  concurred 
in  the  views  of  the  Mayor.  The  report  indicated  the  ground  known  as  "Jones'  Woods," 
as  suitable  for  the  required  purposes;  and  recommended  that  application  be  made  to  the 
Legislature  for  the  passage  of  an  act  authorizing  the  appointment  of  commissioners  to  take 
that  property  for  the  use  of  the  city. 

This  report  having  been  adopted,  and  concurred  in  by  the  other  branch  of  the  Common 
Council,  application  was,  in  accordance  therewith,  made  to  the  Legislature  at  its  extra 
session  in  1851,  and  the  act  known  as  the  "Jones'  Woods  Park  Bill"  was  passed  by  that 
body  on  the  1  ith  day  of  July,  1851.  The  passage  of  this  act  gave  rise  to  a  discussion  regard- 
ing the  relative  advantages  of  other  pieces  of  ground  for  this  purpose,  and  the  Board  of 
Aldermen  adopted,  on  the  5th  of  August,  1851,  a  resolution  appointing  a  special  committee 
to  examine  and  report  whether  there  was  not,  within  the  limits  of  the  city,  a  piece  of  ground 


108  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

more  suitable  for  the  purpose  of  a  public  park  than  that  designated  in  the  act  then  recently 
passed  by  the  Legislature. 

This  committee  made  a  lengthy  and  detailed  report,  setting  forth  the  advantages 
of  the  piece  of  ground  lying  between  Fifth  and  Eighth  Avenues,  59th  and  106th  Streets, 
for  the  purpose  indicated,  over  that  known  as  Jones'  Woods.  A  resolution  to  this  effect 
was  passed  by  the  Board  and,  being  concurred  in,  application  was  made  to  the  Legislature 
for  the  passage  of  an  act  authorizing  the  appointment  of  Commissioners  of  Estimate  and 
Assessment,  for  the  purpose  of  taking  the  ground  referred  to  for  a  public  park. 

Accordingly  the  Legislature  passed,  on  the  23d  of  July,  1853,  an  act  for  taking  the 
ground  now  known  as  the  Central  Park.  The  Supreme  Court,  upon  the  application  of  the 
counsel  to  the  corporation,  appointed,  on  the  17th  of  November,  1853,  five  Commissioners 
of  Estimate  and  Assessment,  to  take  the  land  for  Central  Park. 

These  Commissioners  completed  their  labors  on  the  2d  of  July,  1855,  and  their  report 
was  confirmed  on  the  5th  of  February,  1856.  On  the  same  day  the  Comptroller  communi- 
cated to  the  Common  Council  the  draft  of  an  ordinance  for  the  payment  of  damages  awarded 
by  the  Commissioners. 

During  the  period  which  elapsed  between  the  appointment  of  Commissioners  and  the 
confirmation  of  their  report,  efforts  were  made  to  reduce  the  limits  of  the  park.  Petitions 
were  sent  to  the  Common  Council  to  that  effect  by  various  individuals  whose  motives 
were  as  numerous  as  the  names  appended  to  the  petitions. 

A  committee  was  appointed  to  examine  the  subject,  which  committee  made  a  minority 
and  a  majority  report.  The  following  year  a  resolution  passed  both  Boards  to  petition  the 
Legislature  to  cut  off  a  certain  portion  of  the  park,  by  which  a  few  property  holders  would 
have  been  benefited,  and  the  park  in  reality  destroyed.  The  resolution  was  promptly 
vetoed  by  the  Mayor,  Hon.  Fernando  Wood.  This  would  seem  to  have  put  an  end  to  all 
open  opposition;  but  a  secret  influence  appears  to  have  been  steadily  at  work,  for  reasons 
known  only  to  a  few,  to  retard  the  progress  of  this  great  improvement. 

The  Common  Council  adopted,  on  the  19th  of  May,  an  ordinance  creating  the  Mayor 
and  Street  Commissioner  Commissioners  of  Central  Park,  with  power  to  employ  the  neces- 
sary persons  to  execute  the  repeatedly  expressed  wishes  of  the  people,  and  appropriating 
certain  funds  to  carry  out  the  provisions  of  the  ordinance. 

This  Board  entered  at  once  upon  the  discharge  of  their  duties.  Feeling  the  importance 
of  the  subject  and  the  responsibilities  devolving  upon  them,  they  determined,  before 
adopting  any  definite  course  of  action,  to  seek  the  advice  of  certain  well-known  citizens, 
whose  public  reputation,  peculiar  avocations,  and  cultivated  taste  gave  assurance  that 
their  opinions  would  possess  the  force  of  a  clear,  unbiased  judgment.  Accordingly,  invi- 
tations were  extended  to  Washington  Irving,  George  Bancroft,  James  E.  Cooley,  Charles 
F.  Briggs,  James  Phalen,  C.  A.  Dana,  and  Stewart  Brown  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the 
Commissioners  and  form  a  consulting  Board  for  the  purpose  of  discussing  a  line  of  conduct 
to  be  pursued,  and  to  determine  upon  the  merits  of  such  plans  or  propositions  as  might  be 
laid  before  them,  with  the  view  of  adopting  a  permanent  design  for  the  improvement 
of  the  park. 

These  gentlemen  met  on  the  29th  of  May,  1856,  organized  by  electing  Washington 
Irving  as  President  of  the  Board,  and  settled  the  preliminaries  for  carrying  into  effect  the 
objects  of  the  Commission. 

Subsequently,  various  plans  were  laid  before  them,  and  a  variety  of  views  and  opinions 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  109 

submitted  for  their  consideration.    The  result  of  these  deliberations  was  the  adoption 
of  the  general  features  of  the  plan  prepared  by  Engineer-in-Chief  Viele. 

The  Legislature  passed  on  April  17,  1857,  a  law  creating  a  Board  of  Commissioners 
to  consist  of  eleven  members  named  and  styled  "The  Commissioners  of  the  Central  Park," 
and  conferring  upon  them  all  the  power  and  authority  over  the  lands  included  in  the 
Central  Park,  hitherto  possessed  by  the  Common  Council. 

The  Commissioners  were  named  and  appointed  for  five  years,  and  consisted  of  the 
following  gentlemen:  Robert  J.  Dillon,  James  E.  Cooley,  Charles  H.  Russell,  John  F. 
Butterworth,  John  A.  C.  Gray,  Waldo  Hutchins,  Thomas  E.  Field,  Andrew  H.  Green, 
Charles  W.  Elliot,  William  R.  Strong,  and  James  Hogg.  Andrew  H.  Green  was  elected 
first  President  of  the  Board  of  Commissioners  of  the  Central  Park.  The  first  work  done 
were  preliminary  surveys  of  the  Park  completed  at  the  beginning  of  1858. 

The  Commission  offered  prizes  for  competition  in  preparing  designs  for  the  Central 
Park,  to  be  submitted  not  later  than  April  1,  1858.  The  competing  plans  were  publicly 
exhibited  for  several  weeks. 

The  first  prize  of  two  thousand  dollars  was  awarded  to  the  design  subsequently 
adopted  as  the  plan  of  the  Park.  This  plan — the  Greensward  Plan — was  prepared  by 
Messrs.  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux.  Mr.  Olmsted  was  appointed 
Architect-in-chief  of  the  Park,  and  Mr.  Vaux,  consulting  Architect. 

It  was  not  until  about  the  first  of  June,  1858,  that  a  force  could  be  organized  and 
operations  commenced  on  the  park,  with  proper  regard  to  efficiency  and  economy  of 
labor. 

It  was  necessary,  first,  to  drain  the  lower  part  of  the  park  below  the  old  reservoir; 
then  the  drives  were  constructed  and  the  transverse  roads,  so  as  to  enable  the  public  to 
cross  the  park. 

In  the  meantime  there  was  a  law  passed  in  the  Legislature,  dated  April  2,  1859,  adding 
the  area  between  the  Central  Park  (which  reached  as  far  as  106th  Street),  Fifth  Avenue, 
110th  Street,  and  Eighth  Avenue  to  the  Central  Park,  and  commissioners  were  appointed 
to  appraise  the  lands  involved. 

By  the  end  of  the  year  i860,  the  lower  part  of  the  park  below  79th  Street  was  mainly 
completed,  and  from  79th  Street  to  86th  Street  on  the  west  side  of  the  old  reservoir  was 
also  well  advanced. 

At  the  opening  of  the  year  1861,  the  Board  was  clear  in  its  general  view  of  the  expedi- 
ency of  reducing  the  amount  of  its  expenditures — consequently  less  work  was  done,  though 
the  operations  were  not  suspended,  as  the  conditions  of  the  park  were  such  as  to  make 
suspension   of  all   the   work   inadmissible. 

The  demand  for  the  army  had  withdrawn  a  large  population  from  the  city,  which, 
with  other  causes,  had  occasioned  a  general  nominal  increase  in  the  rate  of  wages. 

Still,  the  end  of  1862  found  three  transverse  road  arches  completed,  and  work  on 
other  bridges  and  arches  completed  or  started.  Considerable  work  was  done  on  the  terrace. 
Water-supply  below  io2d  Street  was  completed  and  brought  into  use  throughout  the 
lower  park.  There  were  seventy-eight  miles  of  carriage  drives  open  at  this  time,  forty-six 
of  bridle  roads,  and  one  hundred  and   eighty-five  miles  of  walks. 

This  shows  how  energetically  the  work  had  progressed  under  the  administration 
of  Mr.  Andrew  H.  Green  and  the  general  supervision  of  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and 
Calvert  Vaux,  who  acted  as  Architect-in-chief  and  Consulting  Architect  respectively. 


no  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

On  April  10,  1862,  Messers.  Olmsted  and  Vaux  were  appointed  Landscape  Architects 
to  the  Board,  receiving  a  joint  compensation. 

On  May  12,  1863,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux  resigned,  the  former 
to  go  to  the  front  in  the  employ  of  the  Sanitary  Commission  of  the  Federal  Army. 

After  various  delays  caused  by  legal  complications,  the  land  between  106th  and  110th 
Streets  was  added  to  the  area  of  the  park,  and  thus  a  very  necessary  addition  made  for  the 
purpose  of  creating  a  harmonious  unit  of  design.  The  land  was  picturesque,  and  is,  at 
the  present  time,  the  most  natural  and  beautiful  part  of  the  park. 

In  the  following  year  Manhattan  Square  was  added  to  the  park  for  the  purpose  of 
establishing  a  Zoological  Garden,  which,  however,  was  never  built  at  this  point. 

In  February,  1866,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux  were  reappointed 
Landscape  Architects  to  the  Board.  Through  all  this  development  of  the  park,  Ignatz 
A.  Pilat  acted  with  great  efficiency  as  landscape  gardener,  directing  the  details  of  all  the 
planting  in  accordance  with  the  general  plans  of  the  Landscape  Architects.  He  died 
September,  1870,  to  the  profound  regret  of  the  Commissioners,  who  passed  resolutions 
of  respect  and  esteem. 

Until  April,  1 870,  the  Park  Commission  was  a  State  Board  appointed  by  the  Governor. 
On  that  date  the  Legislature  created  a  Municipal  Commission  of  five  to  be  appointed 
by  the  Mayor. 

On  November  23,  1871,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux  were  appointed 
Landscape  Architects  Advisory  to  the  Board,  having  acted  until  this  time  as  Landscape 
Architects  and  General  Superintendents. 

At  this  time  the  construction  of  the  Park  in  its  essential  elements  was  completed, 
costing  nearly  $6,000,000.  This  left,  of  course,  a  great  deal  of  costly  construction  and 
landscape  work  in  the  way  of  drainage,  irrigation,  fertilizing,  and  planting  to  be  done. 

In  May,  1872,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted  was  made  Commissioner  temporarily  during 
the  absence  of  Mr.  Stebbins,  and  Calvert  Vaux  was  made  Landscape  Architect  and  General 
Superintendent.  They  acted  in  these  respective  capacities  for  five  months,  until  October 
24,  1872,  when  both  of  them  resigned,  and  were  reappointed;  Frederick  Law  Olmsted 
as  Landscape  Architect,  and  Calvert  Vaux  as  Consulting  Landscape  Architect. 

In  the  meantime,  Manhattan  Square  was  selected  as  a  suitable  spot  for  the  Museum 
of  Natural  History,  and  soon  after,  Calvert  Vaux,  being  the  Architect  of  the  museum, 
resigned  his  position  as  Consulting  Landscape  Architect,  June  4,  1873. 

Frederick  Law  Olmsted  severed  his  connection  with  the  Department  in  1877,  and 
Calvert  Vaux,  having  finished  his  work  with  the  Museum  of  Natural  History,  was  appointed 
Landscape  Architect,  November   19,  1881,  which  position  he  held  until  January,    1883. 

In  April,  1882,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.,  was  appointed  Superintendent  of  Planting,  and 
on  May  25,  1885,  Superintendent  of  Parks. 

Calvert  Vaux  was  reappointed  Landscape  Architect,  January  1,  1888,  and  held  this 
position  until  his  death,  November  18,   1895. 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  history  of  the  design  and  construction  of  the  Central 
Park  has  for  thirty-six  years  been  closely  related  to  the  landscape  work  of  Frederick  Law 
Olmsted  and  Calvert  Vaux. 

Mr.  Parsons  showed  many  old  prints  and  photographs  of  Central  Park  and  two  maps 
prepared  by  Viele. 


Stadtebau  und  Baupolizei. 

Fig.  1. 


»  i  i  i  i  i  1  1  l  i  r  i  i 


Nr.  87.  (Kat.  484.)     Dresden:    Durchbruch  der  Kbnig  Johann-StraBe  und   der  Moritz-StraBe  vom  Altmarkt   nach  dem  Pirnaischen 

Platz  resp,  nach  der  Johann  Georgen-StraBe. 

Der  Durchbruch  offhete  den  Zugang  zum  Altmarkt  von  Westen  (vom  Pirnaischen  Platze)  her.    Die  Hauptverbindungslinie  wurde 

alsbald  durchgebrochen,  die  sie  rechtwinklig  schneidende  Linie  zwischen  Kreuzkirche   und  Neumarkt   ist   noch   unausgebaut.     Im 

AnschluB  an  die  Hauptlinie  wurde  der  Durchbruch  der  Moritz  StraBe  nach  der  Johann  Georgen-Allee  bewirkt. 

Fig.  2. 


Nr.  88.  (Kat.  473.)     Darmstadt:  Durchbruch  vom  Residenzschlofl  und  Marktplatz  zur  BlumenstraBe. 
Bemerkenswert  ist  die  Entschiedenheit,   mit  der  ganze  Hauserblocke    abgebrochen  wurden,   anderseits   aber   wieder  die  Sorgfalt,   mit  der   das 
Bestehende  soweit  als  mdglich  geschont  wurde.    Zweck  der  Linienfuhrung  ist  nicht  nur  das  Schaffen  einer  glatten  Verkehrsbahn,  sondern  das  tunlichst 
starke  ErschlieBen  des  winkeligen  Stadtteiles.    Man  betrachte  die  entstehenden  Platze.    Auf  Parallelitat  der  StraBenwande  ist  kein  Gewicht  gelegt. 


Fig.  3. 


Nr.  8q.  (K.it.  st  i  1     Halle  i    S 


Nr.  qo.  (Kat.  513)     Halle  a.  S. 

Das  alte  Stadlvieriel  zwischen  rMarRtu  und  „alter  Markt"  ist  neu  geregelt  worden,  leider  nicht  ohne  Erniich- 

terung  des  Stadtbildes.     Bemerkenswert   ist   die  Verlangerung   der  Promenade   durch    eine   an   der  Moritzburg 

hinfuhrenden  den  Ring  vollendenden  Ringstrafie.     Der  Muhlgraben  liegt  hier  tief,    die  Burg  und  die  Residenz 

hoch,  so  daft  das  Gelande  zu  interessanten  Ldsungen  anret/t. 


V.  ',  / 

-J  Hi  — 


ms 50         /a' 


■ ' 


Fig.  5. 

Nr.  91.  (Kat.  457.) 
Berlin:  Durchbriiche  im 
Scheunenviertel  von  der 
Kaiser  WilhelmStraBe  zur 
Alten  Schonhauser,  StraB- 
burger  und  Prenzlauer 
StraBe. 


\        V.  .',       !'    1 


Fig.  6. 


40        0 

10 

10 

JO 

•tO 

50m 

I II 1 1 1 1  LI  ll 

Will  Ike,  Die  dcutschen  StUdte.    Bd.  II. 


*  1* 


l\   WW     ""r^ffii?-^ 
W    ^S^?^^  >1  kt  if  ilTiTl 


X^X" 


Ansicht  von   I'unkt   F 


Fig.  7,  8  und  9. 

Nr. 93— <35.  (Kat.474.) 

Darmstadt:  Freilegung  der 
Stadtkirche  zu  Darmstadt. 

Interessant  ist  namentlich, 
wie  fiir  die  Kirchganger 
an  den  Kirchtoren  stille 
verkehrsfreie  Platze  ge- 
schafTen  wurden,  auf  denen 
sie  sich  vor  und  nach  dem 
Gottesdienst  versammeln 
kbnnen.  Diese  bieten  inter- 
essante,  malerische  Durch- 
blicke;  die  an  sich  nicht 
eben  bedeutende  Stadt- 
kirche ist  vvirkungsvol!  her- 
vorgehoben. 


'fM 


2__ 


'ff"v' 


At 


•  . .     ■ 


**9& 


''■-•  *   l;/]l 


1  -  mM( ; 


F*-*8 


o- ■    K  -J 

Z    E?  J 


I  «    S-l    KJ  V_ 

ofii  ,  ■ 


i 

Jh]u    ■ 

- — ®£    t 

•:C  -    fc-   £  ._»    ' 

-  Vc'''  / 

Fig.  17. 


Nr.  103.  (Kat.  469.)     Chemnitz:   Planung  eines  Stadtteiles  auf  freier  Flur. 
Beispiel  einer  alterer.  Planung.    Man  bemerke,  wie  leicht  es  gewesen  ware,  die  StraBen  auf  die  Grundstucksgrenzen  zu  legen  und 
so  eine  einfache  Aufteilung  des  Gelandes   zu  erzielen,    wahrend  jetzt  uberall  unpraktische  Grundstucke   sich    ergeben,    sich   daher 
Verlegungen  etc.  notig  machen  werden.    Man  beobachte  ferner,  dafi  in  dem  grolien  Gebiete  kein  bevorzugter  1'latz  fur  ein  Monumental 
gebaude,  keine  interessante  Platz-Losung  sich  findet.    Manche  Platze  ersrheinen  als  I.andfetzen,  die  bei  der  Aufteilung  librig  blieben. 


>  ^^y    u. 


^S^Sm^ 


Nr.  107.  (Kat.  555.)     StraBburg:  Teil  der  Planung  auf  altem  Festungsgebiet. 
Die  grotien  Universitatsbauten  bedecken  das  Gelande.     Obgleich  sie  planmaBig  aufgestellt  sind,  fehlen  kunstlerische  Beziehungen 

der  einzelnen  Bauten  zu  einander. 


Fig.  23. 


Fig.  22. 


Nr.  108.  (Kat.  453.)     Augsburg:    Platzanlage  auf  freiem  Gebiet. 

Eine   Verkehrstorung    wurde    trotz    gartnerischer    Anlagen    der 

Platzmitte  vermieden. 


Nr.  109.  (Kat.  531.)     Mainz:    Platzanlagen  im  AnschluB   an  vorbandene 

Bauten   und  auf  freiem  alten  Festungsgebiet.     Man  vergleiche  die  Auf- 

stellungsweise  der  Bauten  in  Mittel  des  Piatzes  und  rings  um  den  Platz 

(letzteres  zwischen  Rathaus  'und  Schloii). 


Fig.  24. 


fill  M) 


Nr.  no.  (Kat.  519.)     Hannover:  Planung  auf  freiem  Gebiet.     Die  schematische  Linienfuhrung  ist  bereits  durch  kUnstlerische  Planung  durchbrochen. 

Fig.  25. 


IIP      '  "-fft^^^  _~^  Y %2-^Zr       ™ 

c"'\    ->f*?-    ^%"Wvt  'F^iMUkjU    -^-  -f:.'- ■'■'■■ 


Nr.  111.  (Kat.  519.)     Hannover:   Maschpark.     Monumentalbauten  in  malerischer  Anlage 


VA*A 


Fie.  21. 


Nr.  113.  (Kat.  561.)     Ulm :   Beplanung  an  einer  Lehne  von  starkem  Gefall  mit  StraBen  von  verschiedener  Steigung. 


Fig.  28. 


jl___Jl 


*      CZ3  HtU''to    " 


Nr.  114.  (Kat.  472.)     Darmstadt:  Planung  eines  Viertels,  teils  mit  oftener.  teils  mit  gruppierter,  teils  mit 

geschlossener  Bebauungsweise,   sowie   mit   einzelnen   offentlichen   Bauten.     Man   beachte.  wie  geschickt 

diese  aufgcslellt  und  mit  den  Plalzen  in  Beziehung  gebracht  sir.d. 


- 

'4 

*X>                       Zl 

Ki 

*» 

Nr.  115.  (Kat.  545.)     Plauen  i.  V.:   Planting  auf  lebhaft  bewegtem  Gelande,  in  dem  Steigungen  bis  zu  1   4 
voikomnien.  die  in  den  neuen  Hauptlinien  auf  etwa   1:10  gematiigt  werden. 


Fig.  30. 


Kiel     Planung    in  unruliig  bewegtem  Geliinde 


^0t  J 


\\ 


U 


r 


f  s 
3  3- 


E,  o 


w- 


-o   a-  ir.  >  «   t* 

3       .  S"  n    3 "3' 

rt  <  2"  E  *  3- 


~  5-  °-  "  S-1S 


S     I 


p    C 


5 

fpeP*3                   **^^ 

n    7r 

c 
a 

#7  r 

*£    & 

D. 

*"'-•  L_ 

_.  a. 
3  ™ 

tft 

s*te9        ^*'***»mi*« 

C 

j       $•«.  .. 

B   t> 

Q. 

Ml  jUs, 

a.  g- 
5  > 

■"* 

Cfl  ^ 

X 

'1  mi 

to  =r 

r 


3  s-      ■*»*«     ! 
o-  !      i 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  in 

Frederick  Law  Olmsted  was  superintendent  under  Viele  at  the  time  he  and  Calvert 
Vaux  prepared  the  winning  plan  for  Central  Park,  which  was  distinguished  by  the  trans- 
verse roads.    • 

The  reservoirs  in  the  park  were  building  before  Messrs.  Olmsted  and  Vaux  prepared 
their  plan.  Both  reservoirs  will  be  given  up  when  the  Jerome  Park  reservoir  is  completed 
and  in  use. 

MUNICIPAL   IMPROVEMENTS   IN   BOSTON 
AND   GERMANY 

By  A.  A.  SHURTLEFF 

(Meeting  of  March  10.  1908) 

Mr.  Shurtleff 's  remarks  were  essentially  as  follows,  in  which  the  notes  refer  to  lantern- 
slides  reproduced  herewith. 

Fig.  I.  The  modern  German  city-planners  feel  that  this  new  street  in  Dresden,  the 
Konig  Johann  Strasse,  is  a  mistake  because  it  cuts  in  straight  lines  through  the  city  which 
is  essentially  irregular  in  plan.  They  feel  that  it  represents  a  gash.  Their  feeling  is  that  an 
extension  and  widening  more  like  that  shown  below  in  Fig.  2  is  much  more  harmonious  and 
practical. 

Fig.  2.  (Darmstadt.)  This  extension  and  widening  is  said  to  be  more  practical,  because 
it  takes  property  already  abutting  on  street  lines  with  a  minimum  injury  to  the  old  lines. 
The  spirit  of  the  improvement  is  also  in  harmony  with  the  crookednesses  of  the  old  city 
streets. 

Fig.  3.  The  modern  German  planners  regard  these  improvements  in  Halle  as  exceed- 
ingly good.  They  maintain  the  spirit  of  the  old  city  irregularities  while  providing  every 
convenience  for  traffic  circulation. 

Fig.  4.  This  plan  shows  a  detail  of  the  Halle  improvements. 

Fig.  5.  (Berlin.)  This  plan  receives  great  condemnation  because  it  produces  monotonous 
straight  streets,  acute  angular  junctions  with  old  streets,  and  makes  no  recognition  of 
property  lines. 

Fig.  6.  (Stralsund.)  This  shows  how  the  little  booths  and  small  stores,  together  with 
yeomen's  dwellings  about  the  ancient  Nikolai-Kirche,  were  all  torn  down  in  order  to  give 
a  better  view  of  the  church.  A  park  was  laid  out  around  the  church  where  the  building 
formerly  stood.  This  costly  work  has  brought  about  mortifying  results.  The  church  has 
lost  all  its  former  charm,  amd  appears  uninteresting  and  diminutive  among  the  greater 
buildings  now  adjacent  to  it.  Artists  who  formerly  flocked  to  the  town  to  make  sketches 
of  this  building  have  wholly  abandoned  it  in  their  tours. 

Figs.  7,  8,  and  9.  (Darmstadt.)  These  show  in  plan  and  elevation  the  treatment  of  a 
small  square  intended  to  give  seclusion  behind  the  church,  out  of  the  way  of  traffic. 

Figs.  10  to  16.  (Nuremberg.)  It  was  customary  in  German  improvements  fifty  years 
ago,  to  tear  down  old  city  gates.  It  is  now  the  practice  carefully  to  preserve  them  while 
increasing  their  capacity  for  traffic  by  other  adjacent  openings.  The  older  cities  are  now 
regretting  their  haste  in  destroying  the  most  notable  features  upon  their  outskirts. 

Fig.  17.  (Chemnitz.)  A  system  of  street  subdivision  which  attempts  to  adjust  itself 
to  existing  property  lines,  sucessful  in  some  quarters  and  not  in  others,  as  shown. 


ii2  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

Fig.  18.  This  illustrates  the  irregular  parkway  around  Gottingen,  following  the  line 
of  the  old  fortifications. 

Fig.  19.  The  dotted  lines  show  some  of  the  old  checker-board  streets  of  Charlotten- 
burg  which  are  being  replaced  by  new  crooked  streets.  The  old  streets  were  regarded  as 
intolerably  monotonous. 

Fig.  20.  (Mannheim.)  This  is  criticized  as  an  absurd  "picture-plan."  It  is  declared  that 
the  symmetry  about  the  central  square  can  be  recognized  only  on  paper  and  not  from  the 
streets.  Moreover,  the  scheme  of  treatment,  for  the  square  blocks  traffic  circulation  with 
no  compensating  advantages. 

Fig.  21.  (Strasberg.)  This  scheme  is  called  absurd  because  symmetry  is  present  upon 
paper,  which  cannot  be  recognized  upon  the  ground.  It  is  also  observed  by  the  German 
critics  that  the  plan  is  "pompous"  and  that  the  buildings  are  not  well  related  to  one  another. 

Fig.  22.  (Mainz.)  This  scheme  is  highly  praised  for  its  novelty  and  wonderful 
adaptation  to  the  needs  of  traffic  and  to  existing  churches  and  other  buildings  which 
control  the  design. 

Fig.  23.  (Augsburg.)  A  treatment  for  a  central  square  which  provides  fine  traffic 
opportunities  for  the  through  streets  and,  at  the  same  time,  produces  a  design  which  is  said 
to  be  exceedingly  effective. 

Fig.  24.  (Hanover.)  This  plan  deserves  careful  study.  Notice  how  the  squares  are 
arranged  adjacent  to  the  main  traffic-ways,  and  yet  on  axis  with  adjoining  secondary 
thoroughfares.  The  churches  are  also  arranged  in  short  side-streets,  and  glimpses  are  afforded 
of  them  in  a  most  satisfactory  way.  The  Germans  intentionally  arrange  the  side-streets  in 
such  fashion  that  main  traffic  cannot  pass  through  them. 

Fig.  25.  (Hanover.)  A  characteristic  German  treatment  which  the  critics  say  is 
"trivial,"  through  amusing  and  convenient. 

Fig.  26.  (Flensburg.)  A  residential  quarter  on  irregular  topography  associated  with 
a  semi-naturalistic  mall,  or  park-strip,  leading  up  to  a  church  or  public  building.  No 
extensive  traffic  is  expected  here. 

Fig.  27.  (Ulm.)  A  system  of  streets  for  undulating  ground  which  is  said  to  be  very 
charming,  and  one  executed  upon  the  ground  at  small  expense. 

Fig.  28.  (Darmstadt.)  Another  typical  arrangement  of  buildings,  following  the 
modern  German  ideas.  The  secondary  streets  are  purposely  curved  to  give  variety  and  a 
sense  of  seclusion  from  the  bustle  of  the  main  traffic  roads.  Notice  how  ingeniously  the 
little  park  in  the  middle  of  the  scheme  is  side-tracked. 

Fig.  29.  (Plauen.)  A  scheme  for  very  rough  ground. 

Fig.  30.   (Kiel.)  Another  scheme  of  treatment  for  irregular  topography. 

Fig.  31.  (Aachen.)  Another  treatment  for  a  valley,  to  be  used  in  suburban  settlement. 

Figs.  32,  33,  34,  35.  (Munich.)  This  is  considered  one  of  the  most  interesting  and 
successful  modern  streets  ever  planned  in  Germany.  It  provides  ample  traffic  circulation, 
while  retaining  the  characteristics  of  the  other  streets  of  the  city.  Notice  how  the  squares 
are  arranged;  there  is  no  trace  of  the  axial  French  schemes  here. 

I  think  it  is  fair  to  say  that,  while  these  schemes  of  the  Germans  are  to  be  admired  in 
many  respects,  they  do  not  represent,  by  any  means,  the  only  method  by  which  city  improve- 
ments may  be  effected.  The  French  schemes  are  often  quite  as  useful,  and  in  cities  with 
formal  street-systems,  are  frequently  more  applicable.  Unquestionably,  some  of  the  German 
city-planners  are  running  this  new  idea  into  the  ground;  but  we  must  realize  that  they 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  113 

have  made  discoveries  to  which  we  have  been  blind.  Those  of  us  who  live  in  cities  having 
crooked  streets  and  irregular  property  lines,  may  learn  from  these  examples  how  to  take 
advantage  of  irregularities  which  sometimes  perplex  us,  and  to  appreciate  eccentricities 
which,  in  the  past,  we  have  regarded  as  intolerable  and  as  evidence  of  bad  workmanship. 

The  modern  German  school  of  city-planners  feel  that  the  French  "round  point"  is  a 
hindrance  to  traffic  circulation;  it  causes  hopeless  tangles  of  vehicles.  They  feel  that  it  is 
an  absurdity  of  the  old  French  school  which  no  modern  city  can  wisely  repeat  except  in 
situations  where  the  traffic  conditions  are  very  simple.  This  point  of  view  is  so  astonishing 
to  us  who  have  been  nurtured  in  the  "star  places,"  as  the  Germans  call  them,  that  we  have 
to  draw  a  long  breath  before  accepting  the  German  view  as  truth.  The  great  problems  of 
handling  traffic  are  not  usually  in  streets,  even  though  those  streets  be  narrow,  but  rather 
at  the  intersection  of  streets.  The  Germans  feel  that  enlargements  should  rarely  be  made  at 
these  intersections,  and  that  whenever  possible,  only  two  streets  should  meet  at  the  same 
point.  You  will  notice  in  Fig.  33  how  the  streets  are  brought  into  the  square  shown  in  the 
middle  of  the  picture.  Contrast  this  with  a  typical  French  scheme  at  the  extreme  right 
of  the  picture. 

Mr.  Shurtleff  then  showed  a  large  number  of  pictures  of  Boston  illustrating  the  inter- 
esting appearance  of  curving  streets,  lop-sided  squares,  jogs,  dead  ends.  The  modern  Germans 
glory  in  this  sort  of  thing,  and  they  laugh  to  scorn  those  cities  who  fifty  years  ago  destroyed 
all  this  sort  of  thing  to  create  straight-laced  lineal  schemes  which  are  today  regarded  as 
characterless  and  deadly  monotonous.  Mr.  Shurtleff  pointed  out  that,  in  estimating  the 
wisdom  or  unwisdom  of  these  German  ideas,  one  should  bear  in  mind  their  very  practical 
regard  for  the  needs  of  traffic.  The  Germans  will  never  allow  crookedness  to  stand  in  the 
way  of  vehicle  movements.  The  crookednesses  of  their  main  thoroughfares,  they  always 
declare,  tend  to  favor  circulation,  and  the  crookednesses  in  narrow  streets  are  intended  to 
give  charm  and  novelty. 

Mr.  Shurtleff  said,  in  closing,  that  this  whole  book  of  German  ideas  would  have  been 
closed  to  him  and  to  the  majority  of  persons  about  Boston,  at  least,  had  Mr.  Sylvester 
Baxter  not  undertaken  the  translation  of  the  text,  Mr.  Baxter  was,  unfortunately,  unable 
to  attend  the  lecture.    His  absence  was  greatly  regretted. 

Those  interested  in  this  subject  should  see  a  volume  of  essays  called  "Die  Deutschen  Stadte," 
published  in  Leipsic  by  Friedrich  Brandstotter  in  1904,  and  written  by  Cornelius  Gurlitt;  the  modern 
magazine  called  "Der  Stadtebau,"  which  is  published  regularly,  and  from  which  many  of  these  ideas  have 
been  taken;  also  a  pamphlet  published  by  the  Royal  Institute  of  British  Architects,  London,  in  1905,  and 
written  by  John  W.  Stimpson. 

Mr.  J.  C.  Olmsted:  The  projects  of  the  Boston  Society  for  rearranging  streets  demands  a  revision 
of  the  Constitution,  allowing  condemnation  of  more  land  than  is  actually  required.  No  other  way  will  do. 
All  states  have  gone  on  the  principle  that  private  property  is  to  be  taken  only  for  defined  public  purposes. 
This  is  the  root  of  all  difficulties,  because  property  abutting  on  improved  streets  must  be  re-lotted. 

Mr.  Shurtleff:  At  the  hearings  before  the  Commission,  competent  persons  say  this  must  be  done 
or,  if  it  cannot,  no  report  should  be  issued. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted:  In  Massachusetts  the  law  provides  that  a  public  body  may  take  the  whole  of 
any  lot  of  which  a  part  is  necessary.  In  Maryland  that  property  adjacent  to  property  required  may  be  taken 
and  sold  again.  The  law  is  narrow  in  providing  that  this  may  be  done  in  case  of  public  buildings 
and  approaches  but  not  of  streets.  Plans  have  been  made  for  the  extension  of  Howard  Street,  Baltimore, 
to  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  station,  through  rectangular  blocks  diagonal  to  the  main  street-system,  thus 
leaving  many  bad  alleys  and  corners.  The  plan  proposed  was  done  by  two  real  estate  men,  at  the  instance 
of  the  Art  Society,  for  the  acquisition  of  all  lots  and  their  rearrangement.    It  was  at  first  held  that  it  could 


ii4  AMERICAN   SOCIETY  OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS 

not  be  done;  that  streets  and  alleys  could  not  be  abandoned,  as  they  would  revert  to  heirs  of  original  owners. 
Could  the  city  not  acquire  fee  under  condemnation  proceedings,  and  provide  for  payment  of  minute  damages? 
It  is  an  interesting  case.  The  Germans  deliberately  attempt  to  secure  in  suburban  improvements  the  minor 
irregularities  which  are  so  picturesque  in  country  roads. 

Mr.  Vaux  cited  the  picturesqueness  of  the  main  street  in  St.  Johns,  N.  B.,  and  Mr.  Shurtleff  of 
Franconia  Street,  which  is  300  feet  wide,  ending  25  feet  wide. 

Mr.  F.  L.  Olmsted:   Such  things  are  interesting,  but  we  don't  dare  do  it.   Germans  do  dare. 

Mr.  Manning:  It  is  the  tendency  of  the  surveyor  to  do  the  simplest  thing.  We  must  get  people  to 
appreciate  things  about  them.  I  cannot  conceive  of  a  place  which  has  no  interesting  features,  and  such 
as  have  a  bearing  on  the  design  of  their  streets.  While  large  schemes  stimulate  public  interest,  they  are 
largely  impossible  and  therefore  harmful.  Merely  as  suggestions  they  are  not  harmful,  however.  Schemes 
which  provide  for  large  changes  may  defeat  the  scheme.  Persistence  brings  people  around.  People  must 
give  land  for  parkways.    It  is  impossible  for  small  towns  to  buy.    Use  poor  building-sites  for  roads. 

I  have  induced  the  farmers  to  give  a  100-foot  reservation  in  Billerica  for  a  road.  We  persuaded  a 
lumber  company  to  save  some  pines  along  a  creek  in  Wisconsin. 


PHOTERTT  LIBRARY 
JV.  C.  State  C»Uet< 


INDEX 


PAGE 


Aachen,  Scheme  for  suburban  settlement  in 112 

Acreage  cost  of  parks 45 

Addison,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Additional  land  to  parks,  Purchase  of 82 

Advertising  signs  in  the  Fens,  Boston 48 

Agassiz  Road,  Boston 48 

Agassiz  Bridge,  Boston 48 

Alaska-Yukon  Pacific  Exposition,  1909.    (November  13,  1906) 23 

Amendments  to  Constitution  and  By-Laws.    (December  1 1,  1906) 11,  12,  23 

American  Institute  of  Architects,  Invitation  to  50th  Anniversary.    (December  11,  1906;  Nov.  12,  '07)  23,  25 

Committee   on 16 

American  Institute  of  Architects,  Schedule  of  charges.    (December  10,  1907) 27 

Exchange  of  publications  with.    (December  5,  1903) 20 

Policy  of.    (March  5,  1907) 25 

American  Park  and  Outdoor  Art  Association.    (March  5,  1901;  January  13,  1903) 20 

American  Society  of  Civil  Engineers,  Policy  of.    (March  5,  1907) 25 

American  Society  of  Landscape  Architects,  Organization  of.    (January  4,  1899) 17 

American  Students  in  Paris 68 

Amusements  for  children  in  parks 53 

Antwerp,  Docks  in.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Application  Blank  for  Membership,  Committee  on 15 

Applications  for  Membership.    (January  14,  1902) 20 

Approaches,  Formal  and  informal 104 

Architect  and  Landscape  Architect,  Relations  of,  Speech  on,  by  Howard  Walker 103 

Arborway,  Boston 51 

Architecture  and  Landscape  Architecture,  Relations  of.    (January  13,  1903) 20,  104 

Architectural  League  of  America,  Invitation  to  join.    (January  13,  1903;  March  5,  1903)  ....  20 

Architectural  League  of  New  York,  Exhibition  of.    (January  12,  1904) 21 

Areas  of  Boston  Parks 61-65 

Arlington  Heights 61 

Arnold  Arboretum,  Boston 52 

Art,  Influences  producing  in  Northern  Italy 37 

"Arti"  Gatherings,  The 38 

Assembly  Bill  651  (Palisades  Park)  (February  27,  1906) 13 

Assembly  Bill  1643  (Riverside  Park).    (March  13,  1900;  April  io,  1900;  September  26,  1900)  18,  19 

Associate  Members,  Dues  of.    (February  17,  1905) 11,  21 

"         Admission  of.    (March  5,  1907) 25 

"         Committee  on 16 

Attendants,  Paid,  in  small  parks,  Incompetence  of 78 

Audubon  Circle,  Boston 45 

Augsburg,  Improvements  in 112 

Back  Bay,  Boston 43 

Park 44 

Bancroft,  George 108 

Barren  Island,  New  York 92 

Baths  in  small  city  parks 76,78 

Baxter,  Sylvester,  Translations  of  German  text-books 113 

Beacon  Street,  Boston,  Rope  walks  in 43 

Beacon  Hill,  Boston 43 

Beaux  Arts  men,  Plans  of 103 

(Hi) 


n6  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

PAGE 

Beaver  Brook  Reservation,  Acquisition  of  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 62,64 

Bedding  Plants  in  Paris  Parks 65,67 

Belmont  (Mass.) 62 

Berlin,  Improvements  in 1 1 1 

Blackstone,  William 42 

Blue  Hill  Avenue,  Boston 45 

Blue  Hills  Reservation,  Mountainous  character  of 61,  64 

Boat-Houses  along  the  Hudson  on  parklands 80 

Boboli  Gardens 40 

Borghese  Gardens 40 

Boston  Basin,  Floor  of 60 

Boston,  Board  of  Metropolitan  Park  Commissioners 59 

Common ». 42 

Docks  in.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Metropolitan 56 

Sewerage  Commission 57 

Parks,  Conditions  demanding  in  1892 57 

"      Movement  for 57 

"      Commission  to  inquire  into  park  needs 59 

"      Organic  part  of  Boston  and  area  and  cost  of  system 58,  59 

"      Policy  of  development  and  upkeep 63 

Park  Commission,  Work  of 61 

"            Policy  of  in  acquisition  and  development  of  territory     .      .  63 

"           Acquisitions  along  ocean  shore 61 

"      System,  Paper  on,  by  F.  L.  Olmsted 56 

Table  of  Areas facing  56 

District,  Streams  and  brooks  of 60 

"         "          "      Parkways  along 63 

"         Ponds  and  still  water  in 62 

"        Sewage  conditions  in 56,  57 

"        Topography  of  in  1893 59 

"        Ocean  shore  of 60 

"        Rivers  of 60 

"         Ponds  of 60 

Metropolitan  Water  Board 64 

Boston,  Municipal  Improvements  in.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Boston  Park  System,  Paper  on,  by  J.  C.  Olmsted 42 

Boston  Public  Gardens 42 

Boston  Society  of  Architects.    (March  10,  1908) 27 

Bois  de  Boulogne,  Waterfall  in 68 

Bousch's  Creek,  Jamestown,  Virginia 83 

Bowling  Green,  Cost  of 70 

Boylston  Bridge,  Boston 47 

Boys'  Playgrounds,  Separate 76 

Bridge,  Agassiz 48 

"      Boylston 47 

"       Huntington  Entrance 48 

Fenway 49 

Bridle  Paths 49,  51 

Briggs,  Charles  F 108 

Brookline,  Massachusetts.    (July  7,  1905) 22 

Brooklyn,  Parks  in 107 

Brush,  Clearing  out  of 91 

Budapest 105 

Buffalo  Exposition,  "Parti  pris"  of 103 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  117 


PAOS 


Buffalo,  Parks  in 107 

Buildings  and  Grounds,  Relations  of 103 

"           "     Planting 104 

"           "    Setting 105 

Buildings,  Small,  Effect  of  removal  of in 

"         Useless,  in  small  city  parks 78 

Buttes  Chaumont,  Pare  des 66,68 

Call  of  the  Wild  to  the  front-door  step 104 

Candidate  for  membership,  Proposal  of.    (December  n,  1906) 24 

Caserta,  Royal  Palace  at 41 

Catch-basins,  Cost  of 69 

Cemeteries,  Popularity  of,  as  resorts 106 

Central  Park,  Proposed  area  of 108 

"           "     Attempts  to  curtail         108 

"           "      First  official  action  as  to 107 

"  "     Historical  facts  relating  to 106-1 1 1 

"           "     Commissioners  for 108 

"           "     Commission  for,  Character  of 109 

"           "     Consulting  Board  for 108 

"     Competitive  plans  for 109 

Construction  of 107,  109 

"           "     Operations  begun  on 109 

Transverse  roads  in 109 

"           "      Plan  for,  by  Viele 1 10 

"      Reservoirs  in m 

"           "      Exposition  in,  Proposed 82 

"     History  of,  Committee  on 16 

Inception  and  Development  of,  Paper  by  S.  Parsons,  Jr 103 

"     Largely  due  to  A.  J.  Downing 105 

Proposed  parade-ground  in 82 

"      Proposed  speedway  in 82 

Charges,  Schedule  of.    (January  13,  1903;  March  5,  1903;  January  12,  1904;  February  17,  1905)     15,  20,  22 

Charles  River 60 

"      Acquisitions  along,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 62 

Charlesgate,  Boston 47 

Charlottenburg,  Improvements  in 112 

Chemnitz,  Improvements  in 1 1 1 

Chicago,  Parks  in 107 

Circulation  of  traffic  favored  by  crookedness  in  street  plan 113 

City  Gates 1 1 1 

City  Hall,  Boston 43 

City  Planning,  Paper  on,  A.  A.  Shurtleff in 

"        Two  sorts  of  design  in 103 

Classical  Design,  Growth  of 103 

"       Conditions  requiring 103 

Classics  in  Landscape  Architecture,  Reprints  of,  see  Reprints. 

Client  and  Landscape  Architect,  Permanency  of  consultation  between 96 

Collodi 41 

Colosseum,  The 40 

Columbia  Road,  Boston,  Defects  of 54 

Commerce  of  New  York  City 92 

Commission  to  inquire  into  needs  of  Metropolitan  Boston  Parks         57 

Committees  and  Delegates ij 

Commonwealth  Avenue,  Boston 43.45 


u8  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 


PAQE 


Commonwealth  Avenue,  Boston,  Driveways  united 47 

Compensation,  Professional.    (December  10,  1907) 27,  71 

Competition  among  Nurserymen 90 

Competitive  Plans,  Exhibition  of  at  Yonkers.    (March  13,  1900) 18 

Compiegne,  Park  at 67 

Condemnation,  Law  of   (Massachusetts) 113 

"      "   (Maryland) 113 

Constitution,         10 

Adopted.    (March  6,  1899) 17 

Amendments  to.    (December  11,  1906) 23 

Committee  on 15 

Construction  of  grounds  never  finished 71 

Consultation  between  Client  and  Landscape  Architect,  Permanency  of 96 

Contours  of  Surface,  Neglect  of,  in  planning 103 

Cooley,  James  E 108 

Coordination,  Lack  of  in  works  of  Architect  and  Landscape  Architect 103 

Cost  of  Landscape  Development,  Paper  on,  C.  W.  Leavitt,  Jr 69 

"    F.  VV.  Olmsted 96 

"       "  Parks  by  the  acre 45 

Country  Places,  Conditions  of  layout  of 90 

Crookedness  in  Street  Plan,  Advantages  of 113 

d'Argenville,  Dezalliers,  "Theorie  et  Pratique  de  Jardinage.    (February  5,  1907) 24 

Dana,  Charles  A 108 

Darmstadt,  Improvements  in 1 11,  112 

Dedham,  Massachusetts 62 

Der  Stadtebau 113 

Depredations  in  Thomas  Jefferson  Park,  New  York 78 

Destruction  of  shrubbery  and  trees  in  parks 76 

Details,  Minor,  of  planning 104 

Development,  Landscape,  Paper  on  Cost  of,  C.  W.  Leavitt,  Jr 69 

"           "                                  "        "      "       "  F.  L.  Olmsted 96 

DeWitt  Clinton  Park,  New  York 75 

Die  Deutschen  Stadte,  Gurlitt 113 

Difficulties  of  construction  and  maintenance  of  small  city  parks 75 

Dinners,  Admission  of  Juniors  to.    (March  13,  1900) 18 

Diodati,  Ottaviano 41 

Docks  in  Boston,  Speech  on  scheme  for,  H.  J.  Clark.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Docks  in  American  and  European  cities.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

"        Proposed,  in  Jamaica  Bay 93 

Dorchesterway,  Boston 54 

Downing,  A.  J 81 

"     and  Central  Park,  New  York 106 

"     Monument  to 105 

"     Debt  of  landscape  gardening  to         105 

"      Writings  of 105 

Dresden,  Ksnig  Johann  Strasse m 

Drawing  and  Tracing  Paper  in  i860 81 

Editing  Proceedings,  Committee  on 16 

Edward  Everett  Square,  Boston 54 

Eliot,  Charles 59 

Elizabeth  River,  Jamestown,  Virginia 84 

English  style  of  gardening  compared  with  French  or  Italian 105 

Ericson,  Leif,  Statue  of         47 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  119 

PAGE 

Excess  condemnation.  Prospect  Park,  Brooklyn 82 

Executive  Committee,  Meetings  of.    (December  12,  1899;  February  27,  1900;  January  8,  1901)        .  20 

Committees,  List  of 16 

Exhibition,  First  Annual,  Catalogue  of 17.  '8 

at  Municipal  Art  Society         9 

Exhibitions    (March  13,  1900;   April  10,  1900;  January  14,   1902;  December  5,  1903;  February    17, 

1905;  February  6,  1906) 19,  20,  21,  23 

Exhibitions,  Committees  on.    (November  20,  1901;  January  12,  1904;  February  9,  1904)  .      .       15,  20,  21 

Exposition  at  Jamestown,  Virginia,  Paper  on,  by  W.  H.  Manning 83 

"           in  Central  Park,  Proposed 82 

Expositions,  Waste  in  location  of 83 

Falconieri  Gardens 4° 

Farm-Gardens  in  New  York  parks 76 

Fens,  The,  Boston 45 

"         "          "        Cost  per  acre  of 45 

Fenway,  The,  Boston 47.  48 

"         Bridge,  Boston 49 

Fine  Arts  Federation,  Representation  of  A.  S.  L.  A.  in.    (April  10,  1900) 19 

"         "             "                      "                  "          "           Committee  on.    (September  26,  1900)      ...  15 

Fire-risk  in  Expositions  avoided 84 

Flensburg,  Improvements  in 112 

Florence,  Art  of 38 

Flowers  and  colors  in  Paris  Parks 65,  66 

Forests  of  Blue  Hills,  Destruction  of 61 

Formality,  Excessive,  of  Versailles 104 

Franconia  Street 114 

Franklin  Park,  Boston 52 

Frascati,  Villas  of 104 

French  art,  Character  of 67 

Garbage  Disposal  by  filling  marshes 94 

"Garden  and  Forest,"  Article  from 105 

Garden  details,  Cost  of 69—71 

Gardens,  Italian 37 

Garrison,  William  Lloyd,  Statue  of 44 

Garzoni,  Marquis,  and  his  villa 4' 

Gates,  City 1 1 1 

Genoa,  Garden  art  in 37 

"       Physical  aspect  of 37 

"      Villas  of 104 

Genoese,  Character  of 37 

"         Architecture,  Styles  in 37 

German  street-planning 104 

Giacomelli,  Villa 38 

Gilman,  Arthur,  Architect  of  City  Hall,  Boston         43 

Girardin,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Glover,  General  Stephen,  Statue  of 44 

Golf-ground,  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Golf  in  Parks,  Objections  to 53 

Gottingen  parkway 112 

Grading 91 

Cost  of 69 

Greek  Influence  on  Architecture  of  the  two  Sicilies 40 

Green,  Andrew  H.,  President  Board  of  Commissioners  of  Central  Park 109 


120  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

PAGE 

Greensward  plan  for  Central  Park 109 

Greenwood  Cemetery 100 

Greeting,  The,  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Grounds  and  Buildings,  Relation  of 103 

Gurlitt,  Die  Deutschen  Stadte 113 

Gutters,  Sod,  Cost  of 69 

Hackensack  Meadows 91 

Halle,  Improvements  in ill 

Hamburg,  Docks  in.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Hamilton,  Alexander,  Statue  of 43 

Hamilton  Fish  Park,  New  York 78 

Hampton  Roads,  Virginia 83 

Hanover,  Improvements  in 112 

Harbor,  Proposed,  in  Jamaica  Bay 92 

Haskel,  L.  F 83 

Hemlock  Woods  near  Boston,  Wild  character  of 52 

Historical  Notes,  Paper  on,  Downing  Vaux 81 

Horticulturist  and  Landscape  Architect,  Relations  of,  Speech,  C.  W.  Barry 89* 

"Horticulturist,  The,"  Letters  of  A.  J.  Downing  in 106 

House,  Relation  of,  to  Grounds.  (December  29,  1908) 28,90 

Howard  Street,  Baltimore,  Extension  of 113 

Hudson  County  Boulevard 72 

Hudson  Street  Park,  New  York 79 

Huntington  Entrance,  Boston 48 

Illustrations  in  Repton,  Obsolete  character  of.    (February  5,  1907) 24 

Inception  and  Development  of  Central  Park,  Paper  on  by  S.  Parsons 105 

Inscription  in  republished  classics  in  Landscape  Architecture.    (January  8,  1907) 24- 

Invitation  to  join  Architectural  League  of  America.    (January  13,  1903) 20 

Invitation  to  Fiftieth  Anniversary  A.  I.  A.    (December  1 1,  1906;  January  8,  1907) 24 

Irving,  Washington,  President  of  the  Board  of  Central  Park 108- 

Italian  Gardens,  Paper  on,  by  F.  Vitale 37 

"             "         Character  of 37 

"             "         Character  of  according  to  political  divisions 37 

"          Foreign  influence  on 4° 

Italian  population  near  Thomas  Jefferson  Park,  New  York 78 

Italy,  Characteristics  and  political  divisions  of 37 

"      Southern,  Gardens  of 4°* 

Jamaica  Bay,  Great  Water  Park  in,  Paper  on  by  H.  A.  Caparn 92 

"      Harbor  in 92 

"  "     Character  of 92»94 

Jamaica  Pond,  Boston 5°' 

Jamestown  Exposition,  Paper  on  by  W.  H.  Manning 83 

"                    "            Character  of  native  vegetation 83 

"                   "            Exhibit  at.    (February  6,  1906) 23 

Jerome  Park  Reservoir 1 1 1 

Jones'  Woods         '07 

"       Park  Bill 107 

Juniors  becoming  Fellows.    (December  11,  1906) 23 

Kiel,  Street  scheme  for "2 

King's  Beach,  Massachusetts,  Acquisitions  on,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 61 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  121 

PAOB 

Kingsland,  Mayor,  of  New  York 106 

Knickerbocker  Trust  Co.,  Deposits  in.    (January  14,  1908) 27 

Konig,  Johann  Strasse,  Dresden 1 1 1 

La  Fortezza 4° 

Landscape  Architecture,  Beginnings  of 81 

Landscape  Architect  and  Horticulturist,  Relations  of 89 

"         and  Architect,  Relations  of 103 

Landscape  Design  practised  by  nurserymen 90 

Landscape  Development,  Cost  of,  Paper  on  by  C.  VV.  Leavitt,  Jr 69 

"                                    Cost  of,  Paper  on  by  F.  L.  Olmsted 96 

Cost  per  acre " 71 

Factors  in 97 

Upkeep 97 

"                    "               Data 99 

Maintenance  costs,  Importance  of  foreseeing 96 

"          Treatment,  Simplicity  in 105 

Layout  of  Country  Places,  Conditions  of 90 

Large  Tree  Planting,  Paper  on  by  J.  L.  Greenleaf 29-33 

"         "      Moving,  Frozen  ball 30 

"         "            "         Entire  root-system 30 

"        "            "         Sandy  soil 30 

"         "            "         In  fall 30 

"         "            "        Time  for 30 

"         "            "         In  Colorado 34 

"        "  "         In  Maine 3'.  34 

"        "  "         In  New  England 3'.32 

"         "            "         12  to  14  in.  diameter 33 

"        "            "         Disadvantages  of 34 

Large  Trees,  Resistance  of  winds  to 35 

"             "      Protection  of  trunk  from  sun 36 

Laurel  Hill  Cemetery 106 

League  Island  Park,  Philadelphia.    (January  4,  1899) 17 

L'Enfant,  Major,  Monument  to.    (February  17,  1905) 21 

Leverett  Pond,  Boston 50 

Little  Folks  Fair,  The  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Liverpool,  Docks  in.    (March  10,  1908) 28 

Llewellyn  Park 82 

Local  Conditions  influencing  cost 71 

Local  Materials 49 

Lombardy 37 

Longwood  Entrance,  Boston 49 

Loudon,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Lucca,  Architecture  of 38 

Luxembourg  Gardens 65 

Lynn,  Purchase  of  land  for  parks  and  water-supply 61 

Maintenance,  Cost  of 96 

"     Data   of 99 

"  ' in  Boston,  Hartford 99-102 

"         "       Examples  of  whole  places 99 

"gardens 100 

"  public  parks 101 

"                  "     Tables  of 102 

and  Planting,  Difficulties  of  in  New  York  small  parks 76,  77 


i22  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

PAOE 

Mainz,  Improvements  in 112 

Maiden,  Massachusetts 61 

Manhattan  Square  added  to  Central  Park no 

Manheim,  Improvements  in 112 

Marie  Antoinette, 67 

Marine  Park,  Boston 55 

Maschpark,  Hanover 112 

Mason,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Materials,  Local 49 

Medal  for  best  executed  design.    (January  17,  1905;  February  17,  1905) 21 

Medford,  Massachusetts 64 

Melrose,  Massachusetts 61 

Members,  New,  Nomination  of.    (March  13,  1900) 19 

"         List  of 7 

Membership,  Applications  for.    (January  14,  1902) 20 

Memorial  Tablet  to  Olmsted  and  Vaux.    (January  12,  1904;  January  17,  1905) 21 

"      Committee  on 15 

Menagerie,  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Metropolitan  Boston 56 

Mendon 67 

Middlesex  Fells  Reservation,  Character,  development,  maintenance  and  cost  of 64 

Acquisition  of,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System  and  area  of 64 

Minutes,  Printing  of.    (February  9,  1904) 21 

Editing  of.    (February  6,  1906) 22 

Monument  to  Major  L'Enfant.    (February  17,  1905) 21 

Moorish  Style  in  Architecture  in  Italy 37 

Motions  in  writing.    (February  17,  1905) 21 

Mount  Auburn  Cemetery 106 

Munich,  Improvements  in 112 

Municipal  Art,  Relation  of  A.  S.  L.  A.  to.    (January  9,  1900) 18 

Municipal  Art  Society,  Exhibition  of.    (January  14,  1902) 9,  20 

Municipal  Improvements  in  Boston 113 

Museum  of  Natural  History 110 

Mystic  Lakes 62 

Mystic  River 59,  60 

Acquisitions  along,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 62 

Nantasket  Beach 60 

Acquisition  of,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 61 

National  Sculpture  Society.    (November  20,  1901;  March  5,  1907) 20,25 

Natural  History,  Museum  of no 

Naturalistic  Style  in  Fenway,  Boston 47 

Neapolitans,  Character  and  art  of 40 

Neponset  River 60 

Acquisitions  along,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 62 

Newark  Bay,  Harbor  in 93 

New  York,  Docks  in 92.93 

Newton  Lower  Falls 62 

Nicolai  Kirche,  Stralsund 11 1 

Nomination  of  new  members.    (March  13,  1900) 19 

Nurnberg,  City  Gates Ill 

Nurseries,  Jamestown  Exposition 88 

Nursery  stock,  Information  as  to  quality  of 90 

Committee  on 16,  90 

Improvements  in 90 


OF   LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  123 

PAOB 

Nursery  stock,  Prices  of 90 

Nurserymen  and  Landscape  Design go 

Old  Colony  Railroad 54 

Old  Point  Comfort 83 

Olmsted,  Frederick  Law,  Sr.,  Architect  of  Central  Park 109 

Olmsted  (F.  L.)  and  Vaux,  Memorial  to.    (January  12,  1904;  January  17,  1905) 15,  21 

Olmsted  Park,  Boston 50 

Orchestration,  Lack  of,  in  works  of  landscape  architects 104 

Padua 38 

Paid  Attendants  in  small  parks,  Incompetence  of 78 

Palazzo  dei  Signori 38 

Palisades,  Preservation  of,  and  park  along.    (February  13,  1900;  February  27,  1900) 18 

Palladio 38 

Papers  by  members  at  meetings.    (March  5,  1901;  February  17,  1905) 20,  21 

Parade  Ground,  Proposed  in  Central  Park 82 

Parade,  The,  Prospect  Park,  Brooklyn 53 

Pare  des  Buttes  Chaumont 66 

Park  Commission,  The  new,  in  Boston 44 

Park  construction  over  old  buildings 75 

Park  design  in  relation  to  population 72,  73 

Park  movement,  The  new,  in  Boston 44 

Parker  Hill,  Boston 49 


Entrance 


4') 


Parkman,  Francis,  Home  of  and  monument  to 51 

Parks,  need  for  among  all  classes 106 

Sentiment  as  to  public  rights  in 79 

Parkway,  Gottingen 112 

Parkways  abutting  on  private  property 51 

Arrangement  of  and  conditions  regulating 51 

Trees  and  grass  strips  in 51 

in  Boston  Park  System 60,  62,  63 

Paris  Exposition  1900,  Representative  at.    (April  10,  1900;  September  26,  1900) 19 

Paris,  Visit  to,  Paper  on  by  H.  A.  Caparn 65 


Parmentier 


10,- 


Parsons,  Mrs.  Henry 76 

Samuel,  Jr.,  Superintendent  of  Planting 110 

"          Samuel,  Sr.    (November  13,  1906) 23 

Pasture-making,  Cost  of 70 

Periodicals,  Subscription  to.    (December  11,  1900) 19 

Pescia 41 

Petit  Trianon 67 

Phalen,  James 108 

Pictorial  character  of  good  work 91 

Picturesqueness  in  city  planning 103,  104 

of  Italian  Villas 104 

Piedmont,  Gardens  of 37 

Pilat,  Ignatz  A 110 

Pipe,  Earthenware,  cost  of 69,  70 

Pisa,  Architecture  of 38 

Pitti  Palace,  The 38 

Pitti,  The 38 

Plans  of  Beaux  Arts  men,  Defects  of 103 

Planting  out,  Advantages  of 104 


i24  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN   SOCIETY 

Planting,  Existing  utilized,  Jamestown  Exposition 85 

"         Careless 90 

Playgrounds  for  Boys,  Separate 75,  76 

in  connection  with  New  York  Schools 77,  80 

Pond  scenery  in  Middlesex  Fells 62,  64 

Pontifical  States,  The 37 

Pony-riding,  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Pope,  Writings  of 26 

Port  of  New  York,  The 92 

Printing  of  Minutes.    (February  9,  1904) 21 

Privacy  out-of-doors 39,  42 

Private  ownership  of  forest  lands 58 

Proceedings,  Editing  committee.    (January  8,  1907) 16 

Professional  Practice,  Report  of  Committee  on.    (January  12,  1904) 21 

Proposals  for  membership.    (December  II,  1906) 24 

Prospect  Park,  Sale  of  land 82 

Protection  of  Parks  in  New  York  City,  Difficulties  of 75-80 

Public  attitude  toward  parks 79 

Public  Gardens,  Boston 42,44 

Public  Parks,  Essays  on,  A.  J.  Downing 105 

"       Arguments  for,  A.  J.  Downing 106 

"       Objections  to,  A.  J.  Downing 106 

Publications,  Exchange  of,  with  A.  I.  A.    (December  5,  1903) 20 

Puckler  von  Muskau,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Quincy,  Coast,  Acquisition  on,  for  Metropolitan  Park  System 61 

Ram,  Cost  of 70 

Representative  at  Paris  Exposition.    (April  10,  1900;  September  26,  1900) 19 

Reprints  of  Books  on  Landscape  Architecture.    (November  13,  1906;  January  8,  1907;  February  5, 

1907;  December  10,  1907) 24,  26 

Committee  on 16 

Repton,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

"         Illustrations  in,  Obsolete  character  of.    (February  5,  1907) 24 

"         Reprint  of.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

"         Sale  of  reprints  of.    (January  14,  1908) 27 

Reservoirs  in  Central  Park  and  Jerome  Park 1 1 1 

Revere  Beach 60-63 

"      Acquisition  of 61 

"       Parkway 62 

Reservation,  Development  and  cost  of 63 

Riccardi,  The 38 

Riverside  Drive,  New  York.    (December  12,  1899) 17 

Riverside  Park,  Resolution  to  Protect.    (March  13,  1900;  April  10,  1900;  September  26,  1900)      .      .  18,  19 

"     Committee  on 15 

Riverway,  Boston 45, 49 

"     Design  of 49 

Riviera,  Garden  art  of  the 37 

Roman  Architecture 40 

"       Gardens 40 

"       Art  and  character 40 

Rome,  Villas  of 104 

Rough  Ground,  Street  scheme  for 112 

Rural  Essays,  A.  J.  Downing 106 

St.  Gabriel  Park,  New  York 78 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  125 

PAGE 

St.  Johns,  N.  B.,  Main  St >>4 

Sale  of  Land  in  excess  of  park  needs  in  Prospect  Park,  Brooklyn 82 

San  Francisco,  Parks  in I07 

Sargent,  Henry  Winthrop I0° 

Schedule  of  charges.    (March  5,  1903;  January  12,  1904;  January  9,  1906) 20,21,22 

"  "         Committee  on '5 

Scott,  Writings  of.    (December  10,  1907) 2" 

Seal.    (November  13,  1906)         23.  24 

"      Committee  on IO 

"      Report  of  Committee  on.    (February  5,  1907;  December  29,  1908) 24,28 

"      Qualities  of.    (February  5,  1907) 24 

"      Appropriation  for.    (March  5,  1907;  December  29,  1907) 25.  28 

Sentiment  of  water  scenery 94 

Serristori,  The 3° 

Septic  tank,  Cost  of 70 

Settees  in  small  parks 77 

Sewalls  Point         85 

Sherman  Statue,  Location  of.    (September  26,  1900) '9 

"  "  "  "   Committee  on '5 

Shrubbery  and  trees  in  New  York  small  parks 76,  77.  80 

Shrubs,  Cost  of 70 

Sieges-allee  in  Berlin ,04 

Siena,  Architecture  of 3° 

Simplicity  in  landscape  treatment io5 

Skating,  Ground  flooded  for,  in  parks 79 

Small  City  Parks,  Talks  on,  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr 75 

"         "  "       Difficulties  of  construction  and  maintenance  of 75~8o 

Society  of  the  Preservation  of  Scenic  and  Historic  Places  and  Objects.    (February  27,  1900)   .      .      .        18 

Sod  for  New  York  small  parks 7°.  77 

Sod  Gutters,  Cost  of 69 

Soldiers'  and  Sailors'  Monument,  Location  of.    (January  9,  1900;  December  12,  1899)        ...       17.  >8 

"         "  "  "  "  "    Committee  on '5 

Specifications,  Copying  in  i860 82 

Speedway,  Proposed,  in  Central  Park 82 

Statues  in  Central  Park I07 

Steep  slopes,  Cover  with  growth 9° 

Stenographer  given  up.    (March  5,  1907)         25 

Stiles,  Wm.  A.,  Editor  of  "Garden  and  Forest" ,05 

Stimpson,  John  W.,  Pamphlet  by "3 

Stone  walls,  Cost  of 70 

Stoneham,  Massachusetts °4 

Stony  Brook,  Boston,  Floods  of 4" 

"  "        Flood  channel 45_48 

"  "        Reservation *        °2 

Stralsund,  Nicolai  Kirche ' ' ' 

Strandway,  Boston 54 

Strasburg,  Improvements  in ,I2 

Street  scheme  for  rough  ground II2 

Street-planning,  French  and  German  contrasted M3 

Street  Trees °° 

Strozzi,  The 38 

Suburban  settlement,  Scheme  for,  in  Aachen II2 

Summer  Meetings.    (March  5,  1901;  July  7-9,  1905) 20,22 

Summer  Residences,  Treatment  around I05 

Surface  contours,  Neglect  of,  in  planning I03 


i26  TRANSACTIONS  OF  THE  AMERICAN  SOCIETY 

PAGE 

Swimming  pool,  cost  of 70 

Swings,  scups,  etc.,  Franklin  Park,  Boston 53 

Tank,  Cypress,  Cost  of 70 

Teams,  Cost  of 71 

Telford,  Cost  of 69 

Tennis-court,  Construction  and  cost  of 70 

Theorie  et  Pratique  du  Jardinage.    (February  5,  1907) 24 

Theory  and  Practice  of  Landscape  Gardening,  A.  J.  Downing 106 

Third  dimension  in  design,  lack  of 103 

Thomas  Jefferson  Park,  New  York 77 

"         "         "      Italian  population  near 77 

"         "          "      Depredations  in 77 

Town-PIanning,  Two  kinds  of  design  in 104 

"        Picturesqueness  in 104 

"        Subordinate  features 104 

"        in  Germany 104 

Town-site,  Future,  in  Jamestown  Exposition 84 

Treasurer's  Accounts 14 

Trees  and  shrubbery  in  New  York  small  parks 75-80 

Trees,  Cost  of 70 

"       for  Streets,  Kinds  of 80 

"       Large,  Moving  of.  See  under  Large  Trees 29-36 

"       Preserved  by  ancient  landholders 64 

Tuscan  Gardens,  Design  and  Character  of 38 

Tuscany 37 

"          People  of,  Characteristics 39 

"          Gardens  of 39 

Villas  of 38-40 

"          Architecture  of 38 

Two  Sicilies,  The 40 

Ulm,  Improvements  in 112 

Ulrich,  Rudolph,  Resolution  on  death  of.    (November  13,  1906) 23 

"           "       "     "     Committee  on 15 

Upkeep  and  protection  of  parks  in  Paris 65 

Variety  in  naturalistic  design 48 

Vaux,  Calvert 81,  109 

Venetian  Architecture 37 

Venetian  States,  Gardens  in 38 

Venice 38 

Verona 38 

Versailles 66,  104 

"         Criticism  of 66 

"         Excessive  formality  of 104 

Vicenza 38 

Villa  d'Este 40 

"     Lante 40 

Villas,  Florentine,  Sites  and  character  of 38 

Visit  to  Paris,  Paper  on,  by  H.  A.  Caparn 65 

Vistas,  Ineffective 104 

"       Stopped  and  unstopped 105 


OF  LANDSCAPE  ARCHITECTS  127 

PAGE 

W.  H.  Seward  Park,  New  York 77 

Wading  pools  in  parks 79 

Wages 7i.  99-'02 

Walpole,  Horace,  Writings  of.    (December  io,  1907) 26 

Waltham,  Massachusetts,  Park  reservation  near 62 

Ward's  Pond,  Boston 5° 

Washington,  Plan  of I04 

Water  Basin,  Jamestown  Exposition 86 

Water-front  arrangements  in  Jamaica  Bay,  Proposed 93 

Water-fall,  Bois  de  Boulogne 68 

Waterworks,  Cost  of 7© 

Weidenmann,  Jacob °2 

West  Side  Park,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  Papers  on  by  D.  W.  Langton  and  C.  N.  Lowrie 72 

Western  Notes,  Paper  on  by  O.  C.  Simonds 90 

Whately.    (December  10,  1907) 26 

Wild  growth,  Jamestown  Exposition 87 

Willow  Pond,  Boston 5° 

Winchester,  Massachusetts "'.  °4 

Windings  of  stream,  natural,  through  marshes  and  flat  lands 48 

Windmill,  Cost  of ~° 

Woburn,  Massachusetts "4 

Wood,  Fernando,  Mayor  of  New  York ,0° 

Works  of  members,  Lists  of.    (April  10,  1900) '9 

Zoological  Garden  in  Central  Park,  Proposed "O 

"         Gardens  in  parks 53 


INDEX    TO    PAPERS 
Dates  are  of  meetings  at  which  paper  was  presented. 

Architect  and  Landscape  Architect,  Relations  of,  C.  Howard  Walker.    (January  14,  1908)       .      .      .  103 

Boston,  The  Metropolitan  Park  System  of,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted.    (July  8,  1905) }6 

Boston  Park  System,  The,  John  C.  Olmsted.    (July  7,  1905) 42 

Central  Park,  Interesting  Facts  in  Regard  to  the  Inception  and  Development  of.     (Samuel  Parsons, 

Jr.,  February  11,  1908) I05 

Cost  of  Landscape  Development,  Chas.  W.  Leavitt,  Jr.    (December  12,  1905) 69 

Cost  of  Landscape  Development,  Frederick  Law  Olmsted.    (December  10,  1907) 96 

Historical  Notes,  Downing  Vaux.    (November  13,  1906) 81 

Horticulturist  and  Landscape  Architect,  Relations  of,  C.  W.  Barry.    (January  8,  1907)      ....  89 

Italian  Gardens,  Ferruccio  Vitale.    (April  18,  1905) 37 

Jamaica  Bay,  A  Great  Water  Park  in,  Harold  A.  Caparn.    (November  12,  1907) 92 

Jamesto'.vn  Exposition,  Warren  H.  Manning.    (December  11,  1906) 83 

Large  Tree  Planting,  J.  L.  Greenleaf.    (March  14,  1905) 29 

Municipal  Improvement  in  Boston  and  Germany,  A.  A.  Shurtleff.    (March  10,  1908) in 

Small  City  Parks  (of  New  York  City),  Samuel  Parsons,  Jr.    (March  6,  1906) 75 

Visit  to  Paris,  A,  Harold  A.  Caparn.     (November    14,  1905) 65 

West  Side  Park,  Jersey  City,  N.  J.,  Description  of  Design  for,  Charles  N.  Lowrie  and  Daniel  W. 

Langton.    (February  6,  1906) 72 

Western  Notes,  Synopsis  of  Talk  on,  Ossian  C.  Simonds.    (February  5,  1907) 90 


